OT: Your Tax $ At Work In TX
Mark Stenroos
Gov. Perry Issues Proclamation for Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas
Thursday, April 21, 2011 • Austin, Texas • Proclamation
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:
WHEREAS, the state of Texas is in the midst of an exceptional drought,
with some parts of the state receiving no significant rainfall for
almost three months, matching rainfall deficit records dating back to
the 1930s; and
WHEREAS, a combination of higher than normal temperatures, low
precipitation and low relative humidity has caused an extreme fire
danger over most of the State, sparking more than 8,000 wildfires
(snip)
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority
vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas,
do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011,
to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as ***Days of Prayer for Rain in the State
of Texas***. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer
prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our
communities and the restoration of our normal way of life.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and have
officially caused the Seal of State to be affixed at my Office in the
City of Austin, Texas, this the 21st day of April, 2011.
RICK PERRY
Governor of Texas
Gerard
Wrong ng again.
Mark Stenroos
> Mark Stenroos wrote:
>
> Wrong ng again.
In case you hadn't noticed, I've stopped replying to you in this ng.
So, bugger off.
Gerard
I did not notice, because it's not true.
(Your previous reply was completely ridiculous, in the well known scuM forever
cliché mode.)
O
<de096fad-ed89-4d2f...@h9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Stenroos <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, I'm sure this will fix the problem immediately:
>
Though other the printing up the proclamation, which costs them very
little, there isn't much Tax $ being used here.
-Owen
pianomaven
> In article
> <de096fad-ed89-4d2f-be4d-be43077ea...@h9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mark Stenroos <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Oh, I'm sure this will fix the problem immediately:
>
> Though other the printing up the proclamation, which costs them very
> little, there isn't much Tax $ being used here.
The waste of tax dollars is in the salary paid to that part-time
Governor and the rest of the Texan bozos who call themselves
politicians.
What use are they good for. Apparently most of them have their fingers
stuck up their ass. Or in the wind, to see which way the public is
thinking.
The "great" state of Texas? Yeah, sure.
Now, come on Jesus. Do one for us. Make it rain.
It is, of course, to die laughing. Or crying.
TD
Kip Williams
> Mark Stenroos wrote:
>
> Wrong ng again.
Take it to rec.arts.texas.rain.prayers.arguments!
Kip W
ivanmaxim
This is the some moron who wanted Texas to secede from the Union but
hasn't hesitated to take tax dollars from the government when his
state needs them -what the hell is it with that state??? (and some
others as well including those square ones) Wagner fan
Gerard
Done.
Kip Williams
> This is the some moron who wanted Texas to secede from the Union but
> hasn't hesitated to take tax dollars from the government when his
> state needs them -what the hell is it with that state??? (and some
> others as well including those square ones)
It's not "that state," it's "that governor." He got elected there
somehow, much like Bush got into the White House somehow, but the whole
country didn't turn stupid as a result.
And don't trash the square (actually rectangular) states categorically.
I'd go back to Colorado in a second, if the opportunity ever arose, and
thank my lucky stars to be home again.
Kip W
Mark Stenroos
> ivanmaxim wrote:
> > This is the some moron who wanted Texas to secede from the Union but
> > hasn't hesitated to take tax dollars from the government when his
> > state needs them -what the hell is it with that state??? (and some
> > others as well including those square ones)
>
> It's not "that state," it's "that governor." He got elected there
> somehow, much like Bush got into the White House somehow, but the whole
> country didn't turn stupid as a result.
>
But it is that state.
Have you not been following the recent escapades of their State Board
of Education, which is busy rewriting history books to have a
conservative slant, and who have been rewriting science curriculum to
include the teaching of ID?
I'd say give Texas back to Mexico, but I wouldn't wish that on Mexico
Kip Williams
Thanks. Over half of my relatives live there, and maybe one of them fits
the stereotype you like to have. (And he's a classical pianist.)
On the other hand, one of my cousins' has in-laws who lived there before
the "Texans," and they might like having the name changed back to Mexico.
If and when the US government goes back to the Yahoos, and they start
doing stuff like rewriting textbooks, do you plan to shrug and say
"That's us, all right!" when folks across the ocean say "What the hell
is it with that country?"?
Kip W
Mark Stenroos
> Mark Stenroos wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 3:49 pm, Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> ivanmaxim wrote:
> >>> This is the some moron who wanted Texas to secede from the Union but
> >>> hasn't hesitated to take tax dollars from the government when his
> >>> state needs them -what the hell is it with that state??? (and some
> >>> others as well including those square ones)
>
> >> It's not "that state," it's "that governor." He got elected there
> >> somehow, much like Bush got into the White House somehow, but the whole
> >> country didn't turn stupid as a result.
>
> > But it is that state.
>
> > Have you not been following the recent escapades of their State Board
> > of Education, which is busy rewriting history books to have a
> > conservative slant, and who have been rewriting science curriculum to
> > include the teaching of ID?
>
> > I'd say give Texas back to Mexico, but I wouldn't wish that on Mexico
>
> Thanks. Over half of my relatives live there, and maybe one of them fits
> the stereotype you like to have. (And he's a classical pianist.)
Most of my relatives live in Ohio, which is just as backward as TX.
And a number of them also happen to be classical pianists and
violinists.
> If and when the US government goes back to the Yahoos, and they start
> doing stuff like rewriting textbooks, do you plan to shrug and say
> "That's us, all right!" when folks across the ocean say "What the hell
> is it with that country?"?
There's nothing "all right" about the TX BOE rewriting history and
insisting ID be taught in TX schools, because most school textbooks
are written to the TX standard as TX is the biggest market for
textbooks. That means that TEH STOOPID gets transmitted across the
country based on what happens in TX.
M forever
I thought you had made this up as a joke. But you didn't. Words fail
me.
Allen
Fortunately, I live in Austin; most Austinites don't like what is
happening a little bit. We are usually described as a Blue City in a Red
State. A few years ago the HGTV program House Hunters was showing the
search by a couple for a house in Austin; one of the said "If we
couldn't live in Austin we'd have to leave Texas"--the sentiments of
many of us here. One bright sign appeared in the local paper yesterday:
the man who perhaps has worked harder for and given more money to the
Repugs in Texas was all over Gov "Good Hair" Perry for his strange ideas
about education. Perhaps that will shake up a few people. And don't
forget--Perry's immediate predecessor was George Duh Bya "Nucular" Bush.
Allen
pianomaven
With any luck at all, the Hispanics WILL take Texas back for the
Mexicans and have their cake and eat it too by remaining Amuricans.
Recent census figures do not bode well for the Repuglican Party in the
great state of Texas. The Repugs there have been tarred with that
dipstick Governor in Arizona who wants to stop all the wetbacks on the
street and send them back to where they came from. Texans don't
disagree, as long as there are still a few Mexican chefs to do TexMex
cooking right. So, the "new" immigrants allied with the Dems there are
will form a new majority and throw those bums out.
Looks as though it is written. But who knows what tricks the Repugs
have up their sleeves to deny voting rights to the Hispanics.
Time will tell.
TD
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Repugs have already started to do just that - in some states they
that want people to show some kind of kind of photo ID (I forget the
details) that would effectively shut out some of the constituents
which Obama would need from even being able to vote!!! Wagner Fan
M forever
How can you be a legal citizen and not be able to have such a photo ID?
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll have to check on the exact details - but the requirement makes it
difficult for a lot of the Obama base to actually get in and vote -
I'll try to find it . Wagner fan
ivanmaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
This article describes the controversy - according to the article many
poor and elderly do not have photo IDS
Wagner fan
M forever
Dunno, but that doesn't sound particularly mean and nasty to me. In
order to vote, one must legitimize oneself. Nothing wrong with that.
OK, some 93-year old people may not have a driver's license anymore,
but come on. If somebody wants to vote, he or she can get an ID
somehow.
Bob Harper
(snip)
> How can you be a legal citizen and not be able to have such a photo ID?
*If* you are legal, that will present no problems. Hence the opposition
to voter ID is puzzling.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
>> This article describes the controversy - according to the article many
>> poor and elderly do not have photo IDS
>>
>> http://newamericamedia.org/2011/04/bitter-battle-over-voter-id-laws-p...
>
> Dunno, but that doesn't sound particularly mean and nasty to me. In
> order to vote, one must legitimize oneself. Nothing wrong with that.
> OK, some 93-year old people may not have a driver's license anymore,
> but come on. If somebody wants to vote, he or she can get an ID
> somehow.
After my late mother gave up her driver's license, she got a
state-issued (Missouri) ID card which served as 'government-issued' ID
for purposes of voting, airline security, etc.
Bob Harper
Mark Stenroos
Voter fraud perpetrated by individual citizens is a non-existent
problem in the USA. The Rs would like everyone to think it's a
problem, but it isn't. 99.99% of "concerns" over individual voter
fraud come from the Rs. What's that tell you? It tells you that they
are creating a problem where none exists so that they might suppress
the vote of voters likely to vote for Ds.
We don't have a national ID card in the USA, so securing an ID that
would been seen as legit by state officials running a polling place is
an open question. Most Americans who have a driver's license submit
that as their picture ID. If we didn't all drive, I don't know where
we'd go to get an acceptable picture ID. A passport, perhaps? Both a
driver's license and a passport cost money. Requiring people to own
either in order to vote amounts to charging a poll tax. While $50 -
150 may not be a lot of $ to younger voters, it can mean a lot to
pensioners who are already getting killed on their pharma bills.
We should be encouraging voting in this country, not coming up with
ways to discourage voting, especially when people advocating such
"safeguards" are usually up to no good.
M forever
Still dunno, I don't see that as a big issue. There may be some senior
citizens who are confined to their home and neither drive nor have any
other ID, but how many are there of those really? And how many of
those are even likely to vote? Shouldn't anybody who wants to vote
just go through the procedure and get an ID? I understand that if you
don't drive, you can get an ID card easily.
I could understand if the R fear was that all the illegal immigrants
go to vote, and many of them would probably vote D, but can they? Can
you just show up and vote? Don't they have lists of eligible citizens?
I actually just got a voter registration thing in the mail from the
City of Boston which wasn't addressed to me but to "current residents"
at my address. Obviously I didn't fill it out and send it back because
I am not a citizen, but if a citizen wants to vote, is it such a big
deal to fill that out and have an ID ready? In Germany, everyone has
to show an ID when they go voting, that seems only logical to me. Also
to make sure people don't vote twice which seems to me a more
realistic "danger" because politically interested people would be more
likely to go voting in multiple places than politically uninterested
people not voting at all because they somehow can't get an ID.
Mark Stenroos
> Still dunno, I don't see that as a big issue. There may be some senior
> citizens who are confined to their home and neither drive nor have any
> other ID, but how many are there of those really? And how many of
> those are even likely to vote? Shouldn't anybody who wants to vote
> just go through the procedure and get an ID? I understand that if you
> don't drive, you can get an ID card easily.
I would just mention that I find it ironic that the people
(Republicans) who constantly carp that the government can do nothing
right are the ones arguing that people show some kind of government-
issued ID in order to be able to vote (says Mark, who just this week
spent two hours at the CA DMV to correct the Vin# on the title for one
of my cars, which some CA data entry person had screwed up by entering
the number "5" instead of the letter "S" at it appears on my window
Vin plate, etc, when my title was transferred from NV to CA).
Imagine if the State of Hawaii demanded everyone show their short-
form, Certificate of Live Birth to qualify to vote, and that a "long
form" or a "Birth Certificate" or baptismal and/or circumcision
records didn't qualify as proper ID in order to vote. What would the
Rs say then?
John Wiser
as you are well aware, Harper. Your alleged
puzzlement is a barefaced lie.
JDW
Raymond Hall
> that as their picture ID. If we didn't all drive, I don't know where
> we'd go to get an acceptable picture ID. A passport, perhaps? Both a
> driver's license and a passport cost money. Requiring people to own
> either in order to vote amounts to charging a poll tax. While $50 -
> 150 may not be a lot of $ to younger voters, it can mean a lot to
> pensioners who are already getting killed on their pharma bills.
In NSW, non-drivers can get a "Photo Card" from the RTA (motor registry)
if they wish to apply. My wife has one, and it has proven useful.
> We should be encouraging voting in this country, not coming up with
> ways to discourage voting, especially when people advocating such
> "safeguards" are usually up to no good.
Fear and the promotion of fear, (of violence, of foreigners, of just
about everything except money) is a RW agenda. It aids their cause.
Ray Hall, Taree
Dufus
> I'd say give Texas back to Mexico, but I wouldn't wish that on Mexico
Why not ? What has Mexico done for us lately ? In fact, give Mexico
Arizona, too.
Plus, we'd be rid of the Cliburn Competition.
All I'd ask is duty free import of Tecate.
Gerard
>
> Voter fraud perpetrated by individual citizens is a non-existent
> problem in the USA. The Rs would like everyone to think it's a
> problem, but it isn't. 99.99% of "concerns" over individual voter
> fraud come from the Rs. What's that tell you? It tells you that they
> are creating a problem where none exists so that they might suppress
> the vote of voters likely to vote for Ds.
>
> We don't have a national ID card in the USA, so securing an ID that
> would been seen as legit by state officials running a polling place is
> an open question. Most Americans who have a driver's license submit
> that as their picture ID. If we didn't all drive, I don't know where
> we'd go to get an acceptable picture ID. A passport, perhaps? Both a
> driver's license and a passport cost money. Requiring people to own
> either in order to vote amounts to charging a poll tax. While $50 -
> 150 may not be a lot of $ to younger voters, it can mean a lot to
> pensioners who are already getting killed on their pharma bills.
>
> We should be encouraging voting in this country, not coming up with
> ways to discourage voting, especially when people advocating such
> "safeguards" are usually up to no good.
I suppose that the rules for voting and being registered for voting vary from
state to state.
Is that correct?
And have the Repubs not always been very keen on making it difficult to vote to
poor people and to people living in certain areas in certain cities (where the
Repubs "rule" and have the power to do so)? Like not proving voting enough
machines in downtown districts (where most people vote for Democrats), causing
long lines on the streets in which people had te wait during hours?
Or like changing the boundaries of the districts in which people had to get
registered - but only in the districts where mostly Dem. voters live?
Can a country where such things happen call itself a "democracy"?
Hardly. When such things happen and come into light (in newspapers or tv
documentaries about the US elections), that country makes itself completely
laughable by such kinds of discrimination of voters.
O
Gerard <ghend_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose that the rules for voting and being registered for voting vary from
> state to state.
> Is that correct?
Yes, and sometimes county to county.
> And have the Repubs not always been very keen on making it difficult to vote
> to
> poor people and to people living in certain areas in certain cities (where the
> Repubs "rule" and have the power to do so)?
No, this would be an incorrect conclusion. Most of the controversy is
over voter registration, where a voter must declare themselves eligible
prior to the election. The controversy basically is over "motor voter"
laws which allow people to register without having to show up to
register in person, essentially permitting more lazy people to vote.
Since the lazier voter tends to swing to the Democrats, that's how the
party lines are drawn.
Most local voting at the polls is controlled by the party in local
power. Look at the debacle in Florida in the 2000 election. That was
all under local Democratic election control.
> Like not proving voting enough
> machines in downtown districts (where most people vote for Democrats), causing
> long lines on the streets in which people had te wait during hours?
This is not usually the case. While there seems to be one place where
voters get stuck in long lines every election, it's due more to
screwups at the local polling place, rather than deliberate malice.
> Or like changing the boundaries of the districts in which people had to get
> registered - but only in the districts where mostly Dem. voters live?
This tactic, called "Gerrymandering," is a practice of both parties.
It is a vile practise.
>
> Can a country where such things happen call itself a "democracy"?
Yes, and it does.
> Hardly. When such things happen and come into light (in newspapers or tv
> documentaries about the US elections), that country makes itself completely
> laughable by such kinds of discrimination of voters.
What's laughable might be how people elsewhere exaggerate the effect of
this on the elections. Most polling places proceed rather calmly, and
there are actually, as Mark points out, few cases of accused fraud.
-Owen
Gerard
> In article <43a3a$4db3d2ca$53565cf2$16...@cache6.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
> Gerard <ghend_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I suppose that the rules for voting and being registered for voting
> > vary from state to state.
> > Is that correct?
>
> Yes, and sometimes county to county.
>
> > And have the Repubs not always been very keen on making it
> > difficult to vote to
> > poor people and to people living in certain areas in certain cities
> > (where the Repubs "rule" and have the power to do so)?
>
> No, this would be an incorrect conclusion. Most of the controversy is
> over voter registration, where a voter must declare themselves
> eligible prior to the election. The controversy basically is over
> "motor voter" laws which allow people to register without having to
> show up to register in person, essentially permitting more lazy
> people to vote. Since the lazier voter tends to swing to the
> Democrats, that's how the party lines are drawn.
>
> Most local voting at the polls is controlled by the party in local
> power.
Which is not what might be expected in a democratic country.
>
> Look at the debacle in Florida in the 2000 election. That was
> all under local Democratic election control.
>
> > Like not proving voting enough
> > machines in downtown districts (where most people vote for
> > Democrats), causing long lines on the streets in which people had
> > te wait during hours?
>
> This is not usually the case.
"Not usually" is more than what might be the norm during democratic elections.
>
> While there seems to be one place where
> voters get stuck in long lines every election, it's due more to
> screwups at the local polling place, rather than deliberate malice.
>
> > Or like changing the boundaries of the districts in which people
> > had to get registered - but only in the districts where mostly Dem.
> > voters live?
>
> This tactic, called "Gerrymandering," is a practice of both parties.
> It is a vile practise.
> >
> > Can a country where such things happen call itself a "democracy"?
>
> Yes, and it does.
I don't think such a country is democratic, whatever it calls itself.
>
> > Hardly. When such things happen and come into light (in newspapers
> > or tv documentaries about the US elections), that country makes
> > itself completely laughable by such kinds of discrimination of
> > voters.
>
> What's laughable might be how people elsewhere exaggerate the effect
> of this on the elections.
I don't think that anything is exaggerated by "people elsewhere".
On the contrary: the people elsewhere (like tv stations in Europe) do not take
part in those elections. They have the possibility to report form a certain
distance, and that is what they do.
All te exaggeration is in US political tv commercials during election times.
>
> Most polling places proceed rather calmly,
> and there are actually, as Mark points out, few cases of accused
> fraud.
>
> -
The cases of accused fraud - what Mark wrote about - was about indivdual fraud
by voters.
That was not what I meant.
Bob Harper
Indeed. An amendment requiring districts to be of equal population (+/-
1%, say, to accommodate local circumstances) with the shortest possible
border and the shortest distance between the most widely separated
points, would be salutary. I have no idea which party would benefit--and
that's why it will in all likelihood not happen :(
>>
>> Can a country where such things happen call itself a "democracy"?
>
> Yes, and it does.
>
>> Hardly. When such things happen and come into light (in newspapers or tv
>> documentaries about the US elections), that country makes itself completely
>> laughable by such kinds of discrimination of voters.
>
> What's laughable might be how people elsewhere exaggerate the effect of
> this on the elections. Most polling places proceed rather calmly, and
> there are actually, as Mark points out, few cases of accused fraud.
>
> -Owen
I would add to Owen's reply that the United States is a republic, not a
democracy--if we can keep it, as Ben Franklin purportedly said to the
lady outside the hall where the Constitution was being hammered out. For
the last two or three generations the signs haven't been too promising.
Bob Harper
Raymond Hall
> I would add to Owen's reply that the United States is a republic, not a
> democracy--if we can keep it, as Ben Franklin purportedly said to the
> lady outside the hall where the Constitution was being hammered out. For
> the last two or three generations the signs haven't been too promising.
>
> Bob Harper
France is a Republic too, but it seems like a democracy to me.
Maybe someone can elucidate what is really meant by the statement, "the
United States is a republic, not a democracy" in terms of it being
announced by a RW nut.
Ray Hall, Taree
John Wiser
news:5vZsp.2254$aH5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
box and watch the feathers fly. Much posting on the subject is right-wing
hyperventilation, but there is actually some basis for making the right-wing
case with some nuances foreign to their thinking. As for the source in this
vase, I suspect that the
proverbial (analogue) stopped clock has a better track record
than Harper. Hard to say how much of his utterance is deliberate falsehood
and how much mere reflexive regurgitation of received nonsense. He was
probably very quick at absorbing RC catechism.
With all that under one's belt, secular nonsense can be as steep as it can
get and still be taken for gospel.
JDW
David O.
<ghend_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And have the Repubs not always been very keen on making it difficult to vote to
>poor people and to people living in certain areas in certain cities (where the
>Repubs "rule" and have the power to do so)?
Funny. When I was poor, I had no trouble registering or voting
Democrat.
John Wiser
news:hdq8r6hrahdc59vmu...@4ax.com...
Which assertion is anecdotal and perfectly useless.
JDW
Bob Harper
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
A fundamental problem with capital D Democracy is summed up in this
quotation, attributed to Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler. Though the
attribution is uncertain, the statement is on the mark:
"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only
exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of
public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the
candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy,
always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
BTW, since when is Ben Franklin "a RW nut?"
Bob Harper
Johannes Roehl
Is there any historical backup for that claim? Which actual democracy
collapsed over loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship?
I cannot think of a single obvious case, so "always" seems completely
unsubstantiated. Sounds like bad economy and worse history to me, to put
it mildly.
It is certainly NOT the way the dictatorships in the 1920ties and
1930ties arose in Italy, Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
On the contrary, in Germany the policy of austerity is usually seen as
one reason (among many others) for the collapse of the democracy (which
had been very weak in the first place).
David O.
wrote:
>Which assertion is anecdotal and perfectly useless.
Are you one of those right-wingers who see everything in black &
white?! I'm getting _really_ tired of you intolerant, anti-poor
"patriotic" & jingoistic types.
M forever
Sorry, dude, but that is complete nonsense, as can easily be
demonstrated by observing the current democracies in Western Europe,
and how people vote. Some of them did in fact vote continuously for
governments which promised them more benefits, to the point of
collapse (e.g. Greece), some of them vote more responsively. The
difference is how much of a sense of democracy the people have. The
main problem the US currently has is that many people don't have a
sense of democracy and solidarity. That is why the situation now is so
hopelessly bi-partisan and no solutions for the gigantic problems the
country faces are anywhere in sight.
Gerard
Which does not say anything.
John Wiser
You may kiss my aged pragmatic fundament,
you marshmallow-minded, slogan-dropping twit.
JDW
M forever
I am not so sure if that's not a common misconception. The Weimar
Republic was certainly instable and not universally accepted by and
under constant threat from the extreme left and right, but under the
circumstances and with the enormous burdens it had to carry, it
survived surprisingly long. It also gained a high degree of stability
fairly quickly by 1927-28 at which time the extremist elements had
almost completely lost their political influence. Of course, the crash
of the world economy in 1929 which hit Germany particularly hard
changed that. The biggest problem with the Weimar Republic was that it
didn't have enough safeguards in place which allowed the Nazis to come
to power and transform it into a dictatorship with mostly legal means.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned here.
Gerard
If there ever has been a cliché .........
It's almost 100 years later. Who is learning the lessons?
M forever
ODD.
David O.
wrote:
>Above stands as proof that you can't get anything right.
>You may kiss my aged pragmatic fundament,
>you marshmallow-minded, slogan-dropping twit.
You jingoistic, George-Bush-loving trickle-downer. HOW MANY WARS are
you & your kind going to get us into?
It's too bad you're not on Facebook, John.
M forever
OCD, ODD.
O
Gerard <ghend_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> O wrote:
> > In article <43a3a$4db3d2ca$53565cf2$16...@cache6.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
> > Gerard <ghend_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose that the rules for voting and being registered for voting
> > > vary from state to state.
> > > Is that correct?
> >
> > Yes, and sometimes county to county.
> >
> > > And have the Repubs not always been very keen on making it
> > > difficult to vote to
> > > poor people and to people living in certain areas in certain cities
> > > (where the Repubs "rule" and have the power to do so)?
> >
> > No, this would be an incorrect conclusion. Most of the controversy is
> > over voter registration, where a voter must declare themselves
> > eligible prior to the election. The controversy basically is over
> > "motor voter" laws which allow people to register without having to
> > show up to register in person, essentially permitting more lazy
> > people to vote. Since the lazier voter tends to swing to the
> > Democrats, that's how the party lines are drawn.
> >
> > Most local voting at the polls is controlled by the party in local
> > power.
>
> Which is not what might be expected in a democratic country.
That might depend on your definition of a "democratic country." In
many cases the local poll workers and their managers are also elected
officials.
>
> >
> > Look at the debacle in Florida in the 2000 election. That was
> > all under local Democratic election control.
> >
> > > Like not proving voting enough
> > > machines in downtown districts (where most people vote for
> > > Democrats), causing long lines on the streets in which people had
> > > te wait during hours?
> >
> > This is not usually the case.
>
> "Not usually" is more than what might be the norm during democratic elections.
There's never a line to vote in your country? Never, ever?
>
> >
> > While there seems to be one place where
> > voters get stuck in long lines every election, it's due more to
> > screwups at the local polling place, rather than deliberate malice.
> >
> > > Or like changing the boundaries of the districts in which people
> > > had to get registered - but only in the districts where mostly Dem.
> > > voters live?
> >
> > This tactic, called "Gerrymandering," is a practice of both parties.
> > It is a vile practise.
> > >
> > > Can a country where such things happen call itself a "democracy"?
> >
> > Yes, and it does.
>
> I don't think such a country is democratic, whatever it calls itself.
Technically, it calls itself a Republic.
>
> >
> > > Hardly. When such things happen and come into light (in newspapers
> > > or tv documentaries about the US elections), that country makes
> > > itself completely laughable by such kinds of discrimination of
> > > voters.
> >
> > What's laughable might be how people elsewhere exaggerate the effect
> > of this on the elections.
>
> I don't think that anything is exaggerated by "people elsewhere".
> On the contrary: the people elsewhere (like tv stations in Europe) do not take
> part in those elections. They have the possibility to report form a certain
> distance, and that is what they do.
> All te exaggeration is in US political tv commercials during election times.
We've got all kinds of conspiracy theories in our country - you
probably do in yours. Some of them even hit the newspapers or TV
documentaries. That doesn't mean they are correct nor cover a
significant number of voters.
>
> >
> > Most polling places proceed rather calmly,
> > and there are actually, as Mark points out, few cases of accused
> > fraud.
> >
> > -
>
> The cases of accused fraud - what Mark wrote about - was about indivdual fraud
> by voters.
> That was not what I meant.
So you're talking about things like Chicago's Mayor Daley getting a
whole cemetery out to vote for JFK in 1960?
-Owen
Raymond Hall
> On 4/24/11 10:56 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>> Bob Harper wrote:
>>
>>> I would add to Owen's reply that the United States is a republic, not a
>>> democracy--if we can keep it, as Ben Franklin purportedly said to the
>>> lady outside the hall where the Constitution was being hammered out. For
>>> the last two or three generations the signs haven't been too promising.
>>>
>>> Bob Harper
>>
>> France is a Republic too, but it seems like a democracy to me.
>>
>> Maybe someone can elucidate what is really meant by the statement, "the
>> United States is a republic, not a democracy" in terms of it being
>> announced by a RW nut.
>>
>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>
> I think this may be helpful:
>
> http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
>
> A fundamental problem with capital D Democracy is summed up in this
> quotation, attributed to Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler. Though the
> attribution is uncertain, the statement is on the mark:
So this old colonial fart knew about modern-day Ds then? I don't think so.
> "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only
> exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of
> public treasury. ...."
Is this part the reason why, in essence, you don't believe in welfare?
All of Tytler's nonsense pales besides the amount being spent on current
wars, and subsidies for the rich.
Ray Hall, Taree
Kip Williams
> So you're talking about things like Chicago's Mayor Daley getting a
> whole cemetery out to vote for JFK in 1960?
Oh, we're onto urban legends now?
http://www.slate.com/id/91350/
Kip W
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Not so legendary -- from your own article:
"On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At
least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and
677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns,
a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't
be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune,
among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in
Cook County, it stays stolen." What's more, according to journalist
Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes
of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully
Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon
actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures
and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general蟻s of Jan. 20,
1961, Robert F. Kennedy吃e effectively buried the case."
677 indictments on one election! No, it probably wouldn't have elected
Nixon, but clearly Chicago politics are a powerful and often corrupt
machine. And there are ways to undetectably throw an election,
especially in the days of paper ballots:
"You don't touch the ballots that are for you. You add to the ones for
the other guy. You add an extra mark, so that they voted for two
people and get that ballot thrown out in the recount."
-Howie Carr, Boston Columnist.
-Owen
Bob Harper
> In article<BK5tp.41984$0s5....@newsfe17.iad>, Kip Williams
> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> O wrote:
>>
>>> So you're talking about things like Chicago's Mayor Daley getting a
>>> whole cemetery out to vote for JFK in 1960?
>>
>> Oh, we're onto urban legends now?
>> http://www.slate.com/id/91350/
>>
>
> Not so legendary -- from your own article:
>
> "On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At
> least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and
> 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns,
> a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't
> be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune,
> among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in
> Cook County, it stays stolen." What's more, according to journalist
> Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes
> of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully
> Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon
> actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures
> 1961, Robert F. Kennedy‹he effectively buried the case."
>
> 677 indictments on one election! No, it probably wouldn't have elected
> Nixon, but clearly Chicago politics are a powerful and often corrupt
> machine. And there are ways to undetectably throw an election,
> especially in the days of paper ballots:
>
> "You don't touch the ballots that are for you. You add to the ones for
> the other guy. You add an extra mark, so that they voted for two
> people and get that ballot thrown out in the recount."
>
> -Howie Carr, Boston Columnist.
>
> -Owen
If one believes that election results are not, ah, improperly influenced
in Cook County, one will believe anything.
Bob Harper
M forever
From that follows that you don't believe that the election results in
Cook County were influenced? You do believe a lot of stuff that is
much more outlandish than that.
Gerard
That's not a good thing in a democracy.
> >
> > >
> > > Look at the debacle in Florida in the 2000 election. That was
> > > all under local Democratic election control.
> > >
> > > > Like not proving voting enough
> > > > machines in downtown districts (where most people vote for
> > > > Democrats), causing long lines on the streets in which people
> > > > had te wait during hours?
> > >
> > > This is not usually the case.
> >
> > "Not usually" is more than what might be the norm during democratic
> > elections.
>
> There's never a line to vote in your country? Never, ever?
I've never heard about one.
And specially not "organised" ones - by not delivering to means to vote by
purpose.
> >
> > >
> > > While there seems to be one place where
> > > voters get stuck in long lines every election, it's due more to
> > > screwups at the local polling place, rather than deliberate
> > > malice.
> > >
> > > > Or like changing the boundaries of the districts in which people
> > > > had to get registered - but only in the districts where mostly
> > > > Dem. voters live?
> > >
> > > This tactic, called "Gerrymandering," is a practice of both
> > > parties. It is a vile practise.
> > > >
> > > > Can a country where such things happen call itself a
> > > > "democracy"?
> > >
> > > Yes, and it does.
> >
> > I don't think such a country is democratic, whatever it calls
> > itself.
>
> Technically, it calls itself a Republic.
In the world wide publicity it labels itself as a democracy and even as a
"bringer of democracy" (by bringing armies e.g.).
> >
> > >
> > > > Hardly. When such things happen and come into light (in
> > > > newspapers or tv documentaries about the US elections), that
> > > > country makes itself completely laughable by such kinds of
> > > > discrimination of voters.
> > >
> > > What's laughable might be how people elsewhere exaggerate the
> > > effect of this on the elections.
> >
> > I don't think that anything is exaggerated by "people elsewhere".
> > On the contrary: the people elsewhere (like tv stations in Europe)
> > do not take part in those elections. They have the possibility to
> > report form a certain distance, and that is what they do.
> > All te exaggeration is in US political tv commercials during
> > election times.
>
> We've got all kinds of conspiracy theories in our country - you
> probably do in yours. Some of them even hit the newspapers or TV
> documentaries. That doesn't mean they are correct nor cover a
> significant number of voters.
Is does not mean the opposite either.
> >
> > >
> > > Most polling places proceed rather calmly,
> > > and there are actually, as Mark points out, few cases of accused
> > > fraud.
> > >
> > > -
> >
> > The cases of accused fraud - what Mark wrote about - was about
> > indivdual fraud by voters.
> > That was not what I meant.
>
> So you're talking about things like Chicago's Mayor Daley getting a
> whole cemetery out to vote for JFK in 1960?
>
I was talking about all kinds of "organized" fraud.
I don't know about that 1960 stuff.
But the elections in the USA are almost always surrounded by dirty tricks (not
really different from what happens in countries in Africa and Asia).
Kip Williams
> In article<BK5tp.41984$0s5....@newsfe17.iad>, Kip Williams
> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> O wrote:
>>
>>> So you're talking about things like Chicago's Mayor Daley getting a
>>> whole cemetery out to vote for JFK in 1960?
>>
>> Oh, we're onto urban legends now?
>> http://www.slate.com/id/91350/
>>
>
> Not so legendary -- from your own article:
>
> "On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At
> least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and
> 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns,
> a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't
> be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune,
> among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in
> Cook County, it stays stolen." What's more, according to journalist
> Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes
> of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully
> Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon
> actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures
> 1961, Robert F. Kennedy‹he effectively buried the case."
>
> 677 indictments on one election! No, it probably wouldn't have elected
> Nixon, but clearly Chicago politics are a powerful and often corrupt
> machine. And there are ways to undetectably throw an election,
> especially in the days of paper ballots:
>
> "You don't touch the ballots that are for you. You add to the ones for
> the other guy. You add an extra mark, so that they voted for two
> people and get that ballot thrown out in the recount."
>
> -Howie Carr, Boston Columnist.
And out of that, they got maybe three convictions. Looks like somebody
was fishing. No mention that anybody was found guilty of using the names
of dead people for voters. That was your original contention. Now I see
the goal posts are planted squarely on the "if anything sticks at all, I
win" line.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> in Cook County, one will believe anything.
Of course. It's an article of faith, isn't it?
The question was, "did dead people vote?"
Kip W
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Here's a reference to cemetery voting by the Washington Post, an
interesting read by itself, which further indicates the stuff in
Chicago that Mazo found (which the slate reference mostly omits):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=print
er
Did Daley rig the Chicago elections? Almost assuredly. Did cemeteries
vote? Yes, according to journalist Earl Mazo for the New York Herald
Tribune. Did it affect JFK's victory? Historians differ, but I think
probably not, though I would say that the people in Chicago were expert
at stealing elections (much better than the hanging chad crowd down in
Florida in 2000).
-Owen
Mark Stenroos
Bob, I appreciate your attempt to provide a quote/documentation/
whatever for your claim - because it happens so infrequently - but
this particular quote looks like another of those all-too-convenient
quotes the RW loves to throw out to support their ideology, like the
fake George Washington "Farewell Address" quotes one often encounters.
I have no doubt that were I to spend the time researching this on
Snopes that it would turn out to be a fabrication.
You really need to do better than providing self-serving quotes of
questionable/doubtful attributions to bolster your positions.
Asserting that a quote that is most likely fictional is "on the mark"
is like, well, quoting the Bible to make a point.
Mark Stenroos
> On Apr 24, 11:32 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4/24/11 10:56 AM, Raymond Hall wrote:
>
> > > Bob Harper wrote:
>
> > >> I would add to Owen's reply that the United States is a republic, not a
> > >> democracy--if we can keep it, as Ben Franklin purportedly said to the
> > >> lady outside the hall where the Constitution was being hammered out. For
> > >> the last two or three generations the signs haven't been too promising.
>
> > >> Bob Harper
>
> > > France is a Republic too, but it seems like a democracy to me.
>
> > > Maybe someone can elucidate what is really meant by the statement, "the
> > > United States is a republic, not a democracy" in terms of it being
> > > announced by a RW nut.
>
> > > Ray Hall, Taree
>
> > I think this may be helpful:
>
> >http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
>
> > A fundamental problem with capital D Democracy is summed up in this
> > quotation, attributed to Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler. Though the
> > attribution is uncertain, the statement is on the mark:
> I have no doubt that were I to spend the time researching this on
> Snopes that it would turn out to be a fabrication.
>
I just checked Snopes, and it looks like my suspicions were on the
mark. Debunkings may be found at:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp
http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/101/t/000120.html
Kip Williams
If we can unreservedly accept allegations from Ev Dirksen and unsourced
anecdotes from Mazo, then you might have a case. Looks like mostly anger.
Kip W
M forever
Also note that dude was an 18th-century British scholar. What would he
have known about modern democracies in this modern world which has so
radically changed from his? Quoting him to make a point in this
respect is just as silly as, say, quoting some ancient mythological
text to make a point about the modern world we live in. And who would
do a silly thing like that?
Mark Stenroos
Unfortunately, this reliance on fantasy to support one's worldview is
typical of the religious and the conservatives, most of who say they
are religious.
When you believe in invisible supernatural beings it's not such a
great leap to accept as "true" made-up quotes and "facts." The
conservatives and the religious are predisposed to embracing fantasy,
no more so when they are in desperate need of a counter to reality/
facts. Remember the bushies "creating their own new realities" when
during Junior's Reign of Error?
Here's a quote for Bob: "Bob Harper may mean well, but when it comes
to explaining and defending the conservative position, he's simply
unqualified to do so. Inept, in fact." That statement has been
"attributed" to George Will (by me!), and, "though the attribution is
uncertain, the statement is on the mark."
O
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
Both of the above have a better reputation than Mayor Daley. Dirksen
was on the Watergate committee, and Mazo had a pretty good career (and
he did publish the first of 4 parts)
-Owen
> Kip W
Mark Stenroos
> > If we can unreservedly accept allegations from Ev Dirksen and unsourced
> > anecdotes from Mazo, then you might have a case. Looks like mostly anger.
>
> Both of the above have a better reputation than Mayor Daley. Dirksen
> was on the Watergate committee, and Mazo had a pretty good career (and
> he did publish the first of 4 parts)
>
> -Owen
>
Sure, but that's like naming presidents who have a better rep than
Nixon, or Marines who have a better rep than Oswald.
Kip Williams
> On Apr 25, 11:09 am, O<ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
>
>>> If we can unreservedly accept allegations from Ev Dirksen and unsourced
>>> anecdotes from Mazo, then you might have a case. Looks like mostly anger.
>>
>> Both of the above have a better reputation than Mayor Daley. Dirksen
>> was on the Watergate committee, and Mazo had a pretty good career (and
>> he did publish the first of 4 parts)
>
> Nixon, or Marines who have a better rep than Oswald.
I could be convinced, but not by "this one guy swears" or "everybody
knows that..."
Kip W