Whats going on at Area 51 ? Dioxin Stew?
Cluster User
In article <4sf3ke$h...@lori.albany.net>, rbu...@albany.net (I-SPY) wrote:
> "William R. Belcher" <wbel...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Oh, come on, people...it's just an airbase that tests new designs!
Why the certainty of this? I don't tend to equate Area 51 with "alien
UFOs", but I do think something strange and not altogether wholesome goes
on there. And I do think it is in the best interest of people here to get
an understanding of what we are paying for in this case. We have, after
all, discovered that when our money is spent in secret, some proportion of
it is spent on activities to undermine our own freedom.
Why is Area 51 imnportant? Remember that Bill Clinton earlier this year
signed a document exempting the presumed Area 51 site from having to
release a chemical inventory. This has for the time being put a stop to
all legal actions aimed at the government for alledgedly poisoning Area 51
employees there.
> >Why
> >would they be testing new weapons systems now that the cold war is over?
> >Well, as one U.S. president (Eisenhower) - the government and the economy
> >is governed by the weapons manufacturers and developers - the lovely
> >military and government contracts are why we are still testing planes.
I think he (Eisenhower) was the was the first US president to know enough
and the last to be able to say something distinctly along those lines, and
I think he knew the consequences if he went further. Look what happened to
the next president (JFK), and the sure one after him (Bobby), when they
tried to get in a little over their heads in to the inner workings.
Coincidence they both got shot? Forget JFK- that one is too complex,
nobody will agree on what happened. But Bobby's killing is a different
story; that one was a hatchet job, in fact.
I realize that it isn't PC around here to mention potential conspiracies.
But let's just face it: our government has been proven to irradiate, drug,
and brainwash individuals from it's own citizenry, without their
permission. Area 51 appears to represent another such case. It would be
good to get to the bottom of what happened there, and since the alledged
"cold war" is over, why not give some neutral person or group of people a
tour? It is ironic that our government seemed intent to deny to the
American public that "Area 51" existed until the series of legal actions
taken by citizens FORCED them to acknowledge it. I say ironic, because
let's face it, any relevant power in the world would have been
knowledgable about the existance of Area 51 from satellite images and
spies, and the U.S. would have known that. The only secret they were
keeping by not acknowledging the site was from the people who paid for the
site, us, and the only reason I can see for doing it I can see was to
limit their liability and culpability from a legal standpoint. And there
is Bill Clinton right there at the top, putting another nail in the
coffin. Doesn't it make any of you wonder about what we've let happen over
the past 50 years in our country? I think people here have been programmed
with a kind of nationalism that at least in part identifies it's
government with it's nationhood, and while it is permissable to hate your
politicians (they're just temporary fixtures, after all), "loving the
flag" and "hating communism" and "hating liberalism", and the like are
all the features we of the post WW2 generations identify with being
american. And these are all empty propaganda that feed and program us in
to the service of the indisctinct power structure that really rules this
land. I think you are correct in mentioning Ike; for all of his
Generalismo, in the end, maybe he lacked the courage, or the incentive- or
*maybe he already thought it was too late*- whatever, he didn't go far
enough. At least he raised his concernes with us somewhat.
> >As for the Roswell crash - how could an interstellar craft, supposedly
> >capable of travelling through space, be disabled by a mere lightening
> >bolt?
It sounds like you presume that no such spacecraft ever crashed here. But
then you also seem to go on the presumption that if one had come, it
crashed because of lightning.
Who knows what happened. SOmething happened, and getting stuck on
artificial explanations (like "radar" or "lightning") is about as
worthwhile as... oh, how about watching sopa-operas to get some tips on
how to better your personal relationships.
> >Just some questions from a concerned citizen...please no flames!
>
> >Bill Belcher
>
> I'm sure that one alien spacecraft out of hundreds could have a
> malfunction or pilot error could have caused a crash. Actually I'm
> surprised it hasn't happened more often ( maybe it has ) considering
> the sheer number of reported sightings.
I'm surprised any alien UFOs ever de-cloak- why should they? I see no
reason to doubt that they would have mastered such secretive techniques-
even we have discovered that camoflauge and stealth are two critical,
perhaps key, factors in gaining advantage, and not only in war. From an
intelligence point of view (recon, scientific field work, etc.).
Maybe we only see the dummies coming around, the guys who don't know this
is a full-stealth zone (fragile culture below!), or we see the one in a
million craft malfunction. Point is we are seeing something, and if my
"stealth theory" has any merit, we should be open to the idea that we are
seeing only a tiny fraction of what is coming here.
Sparkchaser
I was stationed nearby @ Tonopah Test Range (37th TFW, USAF), and the
only reason they exempted that area from giving up a chemical inventory
is because they exempt most of the rest of the Nevada test complexes from
inspections of any kind. Why? What goes on in there is a question of
national security, and not the place for pissing contests or loud-mouthed
congressmen (only a few know the area, and they are members of the
security oversight committee that watch over all classified projects.)
There is very little interchange of information between areas, and I have
no exact knowledge of anybody else's area but the one I was in. But I do
know this for damn sure: There are NO, I repeat, NO UFO's. There are also
no super-secret-chemical-kill-'em-all type labratories neither. Anyone
who believes either has been watching too much "X-files", to be of any
use to society.
I hope this clears things up a bit, but I will not go into further
detail, as I have gone far enough.
--
X-Signature: Sparkchaser
A man said to the universe "Sir, I exist." "However,"
the universe replied, "the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation" -Stephen Crane
Sparkchaser, esq. Springdale,Ark... AKA Poultry Hell
.
Cluster User
In article <31EEAC59.5E1D@the_altar.com>, Sparkchaser
<heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
> I was stationed nearby @ Tonopah Test Range (37th TFW, USAF), and the
> only reason they exempted that area from giving up a chemical inventory
> is because they exempt most of the rest of the Nevada test complexes from
> inspections of any kind. Why? What goes on in there is a question of
> national security, and not the place for pissing contests or loud-mouthed
> congressmen (only a few know the area, and they are members of the
> security oversight committee that watch over all classified projects.)
I don't get it- you are anti-congressman? Perhaps you think maybe we
should just skip elected positions altogether in this country? I guess I
could agree that the apathy with which we approach voting renders this
system virtually worthless.
The bottom line is that we are being told stuff is being done in the name
of "our security", and we know billions of our dollars are being spent.
You really think we can just go on faith? Or that the intentional misuse
of power our government has indulged in before represents isolated, freak
instances?
> There is very little interchange of information between areas, and I have
> no exact knowledge of anybody else's area but the one I was in. But I do
> know this for damn sure: There are NO, I repeat, NO UFO's. There are also
> no super-secret-chemical-kill-'em-all type labratories neither. Anyone
> who believes either has been watching too much "X-files", to be of any
> use to society.
Actually, this isn't about UFOs; this is about abuse of power. 60 minutes
aired a full story regarding the law suits by citizens against the
government and it's Area 51 open-pit burning chemical disposal policies.
The government resisted even the attempt to identify itself with an "Area
51", even though it has been public knowledge for many years. The
government seemed to be trying to protect itself more than interested in
the sanctity of any "national security issues."
> I hope this clears things up a bit, but I will not go into further
> detail, as I have gone far enough.
If you are really close to this stuff, I think you have probably had an
extra dose-or-two of the propaganda we all get. Please, give us all one
really good reason we should blindly trust what is beind done with our
untold billions. It isn't the money that upsets me- it is that we don't
know what is being done with it, and I see no reason to have a religious
faith that our government can do good things for it's people in secret.
Perhaps it can make a nifty stealth aircraft, but beyond that, these
secret agencies and military project sites represent the EXACT OPPOSITE of
what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and all the rest had in mind when they set
this system in motion.
Joseph Bui
Cluster User (cluste...@yale.edu) wrote:
> I don't get it- you are anti-congressman? Perhaps you think maybe we
> should just skip elected positions altogether in this country? I guess I
> could agree that the apathy with which we approach voting renders this
> system virtually worthless.
The problem isn't the apathy with which we approach voting, the problem is
that we simply don't vote (most of us, that is). Don't you think mandatory
voting attendance would be an interesting experiment?
If everyone was required to go to a polling place once per year and walk
into the little booth with a ballot, and then walk out and drop it into a
ballot box, I bet a lot more people would vote. Note: I'm not requiring
everyone to VOTE, I'm requiring everyone to show up and at least go thru
the motions. And if you don't vote, how about a nice fine, say $500.00 or
so. Plus, you get a new federal holiday: Voting Day.
love joe
Jim Graham
It won't and can't work. First of all, fining someone for refusing to vote
is essentially forcing the person to vote even if they didn't want ANY of
the candidates to be in office. In effect, your bright idea forces me to
vote for whom I would not, otherwise.
On the other hand, if one of the choices on the ballot was "I decline", then
I would say "go for it". The trouble is, the net effect of declining is
identical to not attending in the first place.
Sorry, but it'll be a cold day in heck before I and many others would respect
such a "law".
No offense, but BAD idea (and extremely un-democratic).
Jim Graham
--
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people
fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government
is our servant, not our master!"
- Thomas Jefferson
"If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any
clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view,
justify revolution --- certainly would if such a right were a vital one."
- Abraham Lincoln
"DON'T TREAD ON ME ... EITHER!"
- Me
"ATTENTION BATF: BITE Me!"
- Me
Office: gra...@iucf.indiana.edu
Home: jgr...@dolmen.bloomington.in.us
Sysop: The Portal Dolmen BBS (812)334-0418
Sparkchaser
Cluster User wrote:
>
> In article <31EEAC59.5E1D@the_altar.com>, Sparkchaser
> <heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
>
> > Why? What goes on in there is a question of
> > national security, and not the place for pissing contests or
> > loud-mouthed
> > congressmen (only a few know the area, and they are members of the
> > security oversight committee that watch over all classified projects.)
>
> should just skip elected positions altogether in this country?
No, silly. I was alluding to the fact that most of the leaks in security
have come from congressmen.
>
> The bottom line is that we are being told stuff is being done in the name
> of "our security", and we know billions of our dollars are being spent.
Billions? over a period of ten to fifteen years, yes. And the
congressional oversight committees see where it winds up.
> You really think we can just go on faith? Or that the intentional misuse
> of power our government has indulged in before represents isolated, freak
> instances?
I smell a conspiracy theory here. Everyone is accountable for monies
spent, even when a project is 'black'. Why, you ask? Because when said
project becomes de-classified, the auditors come a-running, and any
discrepancies can burn a commander's career in a heartbeat. Not too many
officers relish that idea. Also, the reports on said monies spent may
even be (not positive, but I do believe it is) Freedom of Information Act
material, which means you go to the GAO and ask for the info. Then
compare it with the budgeted amounts for the years that project was in
existence.
> Actually, this isn't about UFOs; this is about abuse of power. 60 minutes
> aired a full story regarding the law suits by citizens against the
> government and it's Area 51 open-pit burning chemical disposal policies.
> The government resisted even the attempt to identify itself with an "Area
> 51", even though it has been public knowledge for many years. The
> government seemed to be trying to protect itself more than interested in
> the sanctity of any "national security issues."
Considering the remoteness of the area, who's around to say something?
The former employees are the only source of this complaint. Besides, most
chemicals are disposed of around the country in exactly the same way;
except that incinerators are used, and at a much higher temperature.
BTW, when did these burnings take place? if it was during the 50's and
60's, then it was commonplace to dispose of chemicals that way. I didn't
get to see the episode.
> > I hope this clears things up a bit, but I will not go into further
> > detail, as I have gone far enough.
>
> If you are really close to this stuff, I think you have probably had an
> extra dose-or-two of the propaganda we all get.
Was-close, I'm a civilian now. And the justifications for the budgeting
are noted above.
Please, give us all one
> really good reason we should blindly trust what is beind done with our
> untold billions. It isn't the money that upsets me- it is that we don't
> know what is being done with it, and I see no reason to have a religious
> faith that our government can do good things for it's people in secret.
> Perhaps it can make a nifty stealth aircraft,
One which didn't take so much as a bullet hole during all of Desert
Storm, thank you very much. It is nice to have a fighter that can bomb
anything it wants without anyone knowing of it's arrival.
but beyond that, these
> secret agencies and military project sites represent the EXACT OPPOSITE of
> what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and all the rest had in mind when they set
> this system in motion.
Granted, the cold war is over, but that is not a reason to drop our
defenses, and show the whole world what we have in development. Another
thought, much of the space program was born in the desert wastes as well;
War isn't the only project source. Also, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison
hadn't seen this much technology either.
cmo...@pacificnet.net
>> could agree that the apathy with which we approach voting renders this
>> system virtually worthless.
>
>The problem isn't the apathy with which we approach voting, the problem is
>that we simply don't vote (most of us, that is). Don't you think mandatory
>voting attendance would be an interesting experiment?
>
>If everyone was required to go to a polling place once per year and walk
>into the little booth with a ballot, and then walk out and drop it into a
>ballot box, I bet a lot more people would vote. Note: I'm not requiring
>everyone to VOTE, I'm requiring everyone to show up and at least go thru
>the motions. And if you don't vote, how about a nice fine, say $500.00 or
>so. Plus, you get a new federal holiday: Voting Day.
>
Hi Joe,
I heartily agree with you. I understand that Australia requires
its citizens to vote (because it imposes a $50 fine if they don't).
Also, I would really like to see some kind of news program that not
only discusses a synopsis of what Congressional Bills were voted on each
day and the outcome, but maybe also a two week warning synposis of Bills
in the works and an advocate/protagonist-type preparation for citizens.
Am I dreaming or what?!?!
I agree with Ralph Nader that information regarding our communities
and government should be aired (at least) an hour prime time every day,
REGARDLESS of the "ratings". This obsession that ratings (which
translated actually means MONEY) are the end all and be all to every
justification has got to go. It pollutes the very soul of people.
And, yes, it would be nice to see a T.V. debate re UFO's.
Carol
ZB
On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:46:01 -0700, Sparkchaser
<heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
>cmo...@pacificnet.net wrote:
>>
>> jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote:
>> >Cluster User (cluste...@yale.edu) wrote:
>> >> I don't get it- you are anti-congressman? Perhaps you think maybe we
>> >> I guess I
>> >> could agree that the apathy with which we approach voting renders this
>> >> system virtually worthless.
>> >
>> >The problem isn't the apathy with which we approach voting, the problem is
>> >that we simply don't vote (most of us, that is). Don't you think mandatory
>> >voting attendance would be an interesting experiment?
>
>
>I like the Idea! (sorry, I didn't get to see this part of the response.)
>
>
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> I heartily agree with you. I understand that Australia requires
>> its citizens to vote (because it imposes a $50 fine if they don't).
>>
>> Also, I would really like to see some kind of news program that not
>> only discusses a synopsis of what Congressional Bills were voted on each
>> day and the outcome, but maybe also a two week warning synposis of Bills
>> in the works and an advocate/protagonist-type preparation for citizens.
>> Am I dreaming or what?!?!
>>
>> I agree with Ralph Nader that information regarding our communities
>> and government should be aired (at least) an hour prime time every day,
>> REGARDLESS of the "ratings". This obsession that ratings (which
>> translated actually means MONEY) are the end all and be all to every
>> justification has got to go. It pollutes the very soul of people.
>>
>> And, yes, it would be nice to see a T.V. debate re UFO's.
>>
>> Carol
>
>Hi Carol,
>
>The idea of mandatory voting sounds like a good one to me. The actions of
>congress can already be found on cable/C-SPAN, but I don't know if they
>sum up any of the weekly actions or not. As for the UFO's, I've been in
>Hangar 18; it contained an F-117, just like the rest of 'em :) It would
>still be interesting to see the debates, though.
>
>--
>X-Signature: Sparkchaser
>
>A man said to the universe "Sir, I exist." "However,"
>the universe replied, "the fact has not created in me
>a sense of obligation" -Stephen Crane
> Sparkchaser, esq. Springdale,Ark... AKA Poultry Hell
>.
Oh, come on Sparkchaser, the freedom not to vote is just as important
in a democracy as the right to vote. I do though, agree with your
overall premise. In a democracy, people should at least make an
effort to keep abreast of political issues in the case they do
exercise their right to vote, they will at least have some knowledge
of the issues. C-span is far and away the best source of such
information.
Your neighbor to the north, minus the chickens
gp
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded
as a bad move.........Douglas Adams
Slogan
Cluster User wrote:
>
> In article <4sf3ke$h...@lori.albany.net>, rbu...@albany.net (I-SPY) wrote:
>
> > "William R. Belcher" <wbel...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >Oh, come on, people...it's just an airbase that tests new designs!
>
> Why the certainty of this? I don't tend to equate Area 51 with "alien
> UFOs", but I do think something strange and not altogether wholesome goes
> on there. And I do think it is in the best interest of people here to get
> an understanding of what we are paying for in this case. We have, after
> all, discovered that when our money is spent in secret, some proportion of
> it is spent on activities to undermine our own freedom.
>
First of all, NO ONE who worked at Area 51 has ever claimed that alien
vehicles are tested there. Area S4 (NEAR Area 51, but NOT Area 51) is
where Bob Lazar claimed to have worked on such vehicles. Area 51 is
primarily used for testing new, experimental, or captured/foreign
aircraft.
Our freedom is still the objective in most of these secret programs,
although one might say the profit margins of the rich become a more
powerful influence at times. It's just another question of whether the
end justifies the means. How many deals with the devil must one make to
expediently achieve a goal?
>
> > >Why
> > >would they be testing new weapons systems now that the cold war is over?
Which media whore declared the cold war over? Did Communist China, one
of the largest nations in the world in both size and population,
suddenly stop doing horrible things? Did someone forget about the open
hostility of their actions towards Taiwan and Tibet and various other
nations? Are there no other countries threatening our security by
various means, like development of nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia and
the Middle east?
>
> I think he (Eisenhower) was the was the first US president to know enough
> and the last to be able to say something distinctly along those lines, and
> I think he knew the consequences if he went further. Look what happened to
> the next president (JFK), and the sure one after him (Bobby), when they
> tried to get in a little over their heads in to the inner workings.
> Coincidence they both got shot? Forget JFK- that one is too complex,
> nobody will agree on what happened. But Bobby's killing is a different
> story; that one was a hatchet job, in fact.
>
What's so complex? The CIA uses the mafia to get a lot of their "work"
done. There's a specific agenda being carried out by our intelligence
community and the Kennedy brothers (among others) disrupted that agenda.
>
> > >As for the Roswell crash - how could an interstellar craft, supposedly
> > >capable of travelling through space, be disabled by a mere lightening
> > >bolt?
>
> It sounds like you presume that no such spacecraft ever crashed here. But
> then you also seem to go on the presumption that if one had come, it
> crashed because of lightning.
That's a lot of conjecture. Who said it was even interstellar? The
explanations I usually hear involve the effects of active radar on
"their" guidance systems, as opposed to passive radar (a subject on
which I'm no expert).
> I'm surprised any alien UFOs ever de-cloak- why should they? I see no
The "cloak" effect, as you described in Star Trek terminology, is
supposedly achieved by a specific alignment of the antigravitational
amplifiers, which assumably affects how the vehicles transport
themselves and therefore cannot be maintained at all times. This is
based on Lazar's information again.
Sparkchaser
Dean Adams
In article <31F13F...@i-link.net>, Slogan <slo...@i-link.net> wrote:
>First of all, NO ONE who worked at Area 51 has ever claimed that alien
>vehicles are tested there.
Of course no one who REALLY worked there... but as is the norm
in the lunatic fringe, there are always people who invent such
claims totally out of thin air. And as is also the norm, there
are people stupid and gullible enough to believe them.
>Area S4 (NEAR Area 51, but NOT Area 51) is
Is nothing but an empty section of desert.
>> It sounds like you presume that no such spacecraft ever crashed here. But
>> then you also seem to go on the presumption that if one had come, it
>> crashed because of lightning.
>That's a lot of conjecture.
That is a lot of wildly ignorant insanity. Lightning?! Sheesh.
>The explanations I usually hear involve the effects of active radar on
>"their" guidance systems, as opposed to passive radar
Thats even more insane than the lightning nonsense.
BTW, radar by its very nature is "active".
> (a subject on which I'm no expert).
Obviously.
>> I'm surprised any alien UFOs ever de-cloak- why should they? I see no
>The "cloak" effect, as you described in Star Trek terminology, is
>supposedly achieved by a specific alignment of the antigravitational
>amplifiers, which assumably affects how the vehicles transport
Oh geez, that is like quoting from the StarFleet Technical Manual.
Joseph R. Darancette
mad...@rippers.com wrote:
>I couldn't go along with mandatory voting UNLESS there is drastic
>reforms on elections. The way the major-media practally forbids some
>candidates from BUYING air time, let alone join in debates, how would
>most of those forced voters be able to make a logical decision?
Not voting often can be explained by apathy or ignorence however, not
voting can also be considered a valid political expression.
And what organ of the state will police the voting public and what
will be the penality for non complience? Freedom of speech includes
the freedom not to speak and the freedom to choose includes the
freedom not to choose.
***************************************************************
Joseph R. Darancette
<dar...@primenet.com>
http://www.primenet.com/~daranc/ctci/
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate"
(Entities are not to be multiplied beyond need.)
--William of Ockham
***************************************************************
Paul Stowe
As long as "None of the above" is on the ballot!
and the rule that if "None of the above" wins the popular vote, other
canidates must be offered by each party and a provision be provided for
the post until the matter was resolved!
Paul Stowe
mad...@rippers.com
Sparkchaser <heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
>cmo...@pacificnet.net wrote:
>>
>> jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote:
>> >Cluster User (cluste...@yale.edu) wrote:
>> >> I don't get it- you are anti-congressman? Perhaps you think maybe we
>> >> I guess I
>> >> could agree that the apathy with which we approach voting renders this
>> >> system virtually worthless.
>> >
>> >The problem isn't the apathy with which we approach voting, the problem is
>> >that we simply don't vote (most of us, that is). Don't you think mandatory
>> >voting attendance would be an interesting experiment?
I couldn't go along with mandatory voting UNLESS there is drastic
reforms on elections. The way the major-media practally forbids some
candidates from BUYING air time, let alone join in debates, how would
most of those forced voters be able to make a logical decision?
There are STILL several candidates in the Republican side of the game
that the media doesn't want you to know, or even remember them.
I just can't see an additional 50 million or so voting for EITHER
Clinton or Dole, without even knowing of the others and what their
platforms are.
Those few who do vote are the ones who care at least a little as to
what direction this nation takes, when you force millions who just
don't give a damn, the country would have been in deeper shit decades
ago, and IMO, most would vote the incumbent back in.
Joseph Bui
Ok, since I apparently started this by commenting about mandatory voting in
another thread (something about Area 51, I believe), I'd better explain
myself more completely.
1) Require everyone to get a voter registration card, w/ picture. This
functions as proof of USA citizenship, btw. Note: does not contain any
personal information besides your name and your current address.
2) Declare national holiday on voting day (same day as it is now, just its
a federal holiday). People who must work (ie. utilities, bus drivers, etc.)
get overtime pay, and the option to vote by mail.
3) Everyone must go to his/her polling place on voting day or have received
a prior exemption, in which case she/he must vote by mail. Vote by mail
rules below.
4) When you show up at the polling place, you should your voter ID and your
name is checked off. You are given a ballot. You may now do the following:
a) put your unmarked ballot in the collect box
b) walk out and don't even turn in your ballot
c) go into a booth and don't mark your ballot and then turn it in
or walk out
d) go into a booth and mark "I decline" or "I support none of the
available candidates" (I'm not sure about the wording that is best)
e) go into a booth and vote for the available candidates (of your
choice)
Vote by mail:
a) You may request to vote by mail for any reason as long as you
notify the voting authority by the appropriate deadline
b) You receive the ballot ahead of time in the mail, with a postage
paid reply envelope
c) You may return it, with either "I decline" (see d above) or with
your votes
d) You may refuse to return it (ie. throw in trash)
5) If you don't get an exemption to vote by mail, and you don't have a
valid excuse ("I got hit by a bus and was in the hospital"), and you don't
show up to your polling place, THEN you get fined some amount (I suggest
$500, note: someone posted that Australia fines people $50 for not voting).
6) In addition, I'd like to see a moratorium on election campaigning and
advertising on the day before voting day. They do this in France. It allows
people time to think w/o the advertising barrage we get now.
7) And while I'm at it, I'll allow political leaflets to be made available
OUTSIDE polling places. No people may actively campaign or pass out
materials on Voting day within 1 mile of any polling place. You can have
people sitting at tables watching over your pamphlets, but not accosting
people. And no one within 1 mile of a polling place may ask people how they
voted. (Ie. no election exit polls by TV reporters.)
That is as far as I've thought out this required voting idea.
love joe
Bryan Griffin
> Sparkchaser <heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
>
> >cmo...@pacificnet.net wrote:
> >>
> >> jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote:
> >> >Cluster User (cluste...@yale.edu) wrote:
> >> >> I don't get it- you are anti-congressman? Perhaps you think maybe we
> >> >> I guess I
> >> >> could agree that the apathy with which we approach voting renders this
> >> >> system virtually worthless.
> >> >
> >> >The problem isn't the apathy with which we approach voting, the problem is
> >> >that we simply don't vote (most of us, that is). Don't you think mandatory
> >> >voting attendance would be an interesting experiment?
...
> There are STILL several candidates in the Republican side of the game
> that the media doesn't want you to know, or even remember them.
However Dole pretty much has a lock on the Republican nomination so
those Republicans aren't really of interest anymore. What is more important
are the third party candidates like Harry Browne of the Libertarian
Party, "http://www.harrybrowne96.org", who should be on the ballot in
all 50 states this year but is being ignored. Just like last time in '92
when there were *four* candidates on the ballot in all 50 states,
but you only heard about 3 of them, Libertarian candidate Andre Marrou was
hardly mentioned.
> I just can't see an additional 50 million or so voting for EITHER
> Clinton or Dole, without even knowing of the others and what their
> platforms are.
This is part of the problem, too few voters are informed these
days to begin with, I think it would be disastrous to mandate voting
since those people who aren't informed now and don't bother voting
probably wouldn't inform themselves before they vote if they were
forced to. In addition of course it seems a violation of people's
rights to *force* them to vote if they don't choose to do so
voluntarily. As someone mentioned it seems they are likely then
to vote the incumbent back in, or perhaps whoever's name they've
heard most or whose sound-bite they happened to like.
Bryan Griffin
b...@bwg.com
Garry Bryan
Paul Stowe (pst...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: As long as "None of the above" is on the ballot!
: Paul Stowe
For the record, I heard from a native Australian that they have mandatory voting
and you are fined if you don't vote. i would also like proportional democracy
where you have districts with say 10 representatives. If your party only wins
30% of the vote, you get 3 reps. You could have more political parties
represented and more interest. . .
Garry (%^{>
Lance Purple
>jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote:
>> d) go into a booth and mark "I decline" or "I support none of the
>> available candidates" (I'm not sure about the wording that is best)
>> e) go into a booth and vote for the available candidates (of your
>> choice)
It'd be better if we just had [] Yes and [] No boxes by each candidate;
then you could vote Yes for your favorite three; No to all of them, etc.
Any candidate who got more No than Yes votes would be disqualified; and
whoever got the most Yes votes (after subtracting his/her No's) wins.
L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)
AussieYank
jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote:
>The problem isn't the apathy with which we approach voting, the problem is
>that we simply don't vote (most of us, that is). Don't you think mandatory
>voting attendance would be an interesting experiment?
Your "experiment" is alive in Australia. May I suggest you study the
land of kangaroos? We have mandatory voting down under. From the
perspective of voting in two countries (USA and Australia) you just
might understand the issues are not that simple. Apathy is not the
problem.
Americans have a right to vote; whether they exercise that right is up
to the individual. In Australia, Australians have an obligation to
vote: a failure to vote (or more accurately, a failure to show up at
the polling booth) may result in a fine of $50.00AUS. Not much, you
say, but in this culture, the monetary punishment it trivial compared
to the hidden punishment agenda.
American voting is whomever gets the most votes wins (what is known in
Australia is "first past the post.") In Australia, we have
preferential voting where one must vote for ALL candidates for a
particular position, ranking them in preference order. If a candidate
does not receive fifty percent plus one votes on the first count (and
be declared the winner), the candidate with the least number of votes
has their ballots reviewed and allotted to the second choices of
preference. (Got it?) A complete recount is done and if there is
still no candidate with 50% plus one votes, the process is repeated.
The reality is that it is possible for a candidate with a minority
vote count overall to be declared the winner (i.e., Ross Perot could
have been elected in the last US election, despite him not having
enough first place votes!).
Americans are raised with the belief that government is a necessary
evil and that eternal vigilance of their government a requirement
Americans to not take lightly (I know, I used to teach US History that
way). In Australia, native-born Australians believe the government
"will take care of them," whatever the reason or cause. America
prides itself on the individual; Australia boasts of egalitarianism
and supports the collective. Whether the ideal supports reality is
another issue - but just as important, if not more so.
Having experienced both methods of voting, and the respective
cultures, I opt for the American system of voting, hands down.
If you desire a list of my reasons, I'll post a few if requested.
DL
Adelaide, Australia
Alan Bomberger
> Ok, since I apparently started this by commenting about mandatory voting in
> another thread (something about Area 51, I believe), I'd better explain
> myself more completely.
>
> 1) Require everyone to get a voter registration card, w/ picture. This
> functions as proof of USA citizenship, btw. Note: does not contain any
> personal information besides your name and your current address.
>
> 2) Declare national holiday on voting day (same day as it is now, just its
> a federal holiday). People who must work (ie. utilities, bus drivers, etc.)
> get overtime pay, and the option to vote by mail.
>
> 3) Everyone must go to his/her polling place on voting day or have received
> a prior exemption, in which case she/he must vote by mail. Vote by mail
> rules below.
Everyone get out the card given to him by some guy who gave him 5 bucks
to vote as indicated on the card, and vote. In no uncertain terms,
mandatory voting in this country would be a disaster. Today! I mean
right now, 40% of voters don't know that Bob Dole is over 70. How
can sentient beings be this uninformed considering the deluge of
statements in the media about how old Bob Dole is. If they don't
know he is over 70 you can bet your bippy they don't know the positions
of either candidate on any issue of the day and most certainly don't
have a clue as to how to save SS or Medicare from bankruptcy. Yet
you want them to vote for bleep's sake. Give us all a break!
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Henry Ayre
> Any candidate who got more No than Yes votes would be disqualified; and
> whoever got the most Yes votes (after subtracting his/her No's) wins. L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)
This is a great idea! This would test both the positive and negative
reactions of the voters to each candidate. Obviously, a candidate must
get more positive than negative even to be considered, and more
percentage positive than negative to win. This would be a REAL election,
not a sterile exercise to put the stamp of legitimacy on some crook who
wants to pillage the public officially. H. Ayre.
Justin
jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote:
> d) go into a booth and mark "I decline" or "I support none of the
> available candidates" (I'm not sure about the wording that is best)
> e) go into a booth and vote for the available candidates (of your
> choice)
I think the words you're looking for are "I abstain".
>6) In addition, I'd like to see a moratorium on election campaigning and
>advertising on the day before voting day. They do this in France. It allows
>people time to think w/o the advertising barrage we get now.
>7) And while I'm at it, I'll allow political leaflets to be made available
>OUTSIDE polling places. No people may actively campaign or pass out
>materials on Voting day within 1 mile of any polling place. You can have
>people sitting at tables watching over your pamphlets, but not accosting
>people. And no one within 1 mile of a polling place may ask people how they
>voted. (Ie. no election exit polls by TV reporters.)
If you do number 6, number 7 is pretty much taken care of, unless the moratorium
is only for the day before elections, and isn't for the election day. I
personally would make it for both days, myself. I can see having pamplets
available at the polling place listing a candidates positions on various issues.
Having them available is not the same thing as handing them out.
>That is as far as I've thought out this required voting idea.
Sounds interesting to me. The only problem is that I'm not so sure I want the
people who don't vote now voting in the future. I mean, if they're not
responsible enough to vote now, they won't be responsible enough to learn the
issues tomorrow. I'd rather have 30% of the people who are informed vote, than
to have those people's votes overrun by the 70% who are completely clueless and
only voting because they have to.
Maybe the best idea is to give people who vote (or at least show up at the polls
and take a ballot) a tax break. That way, you'll increase voter turn out, and
since the people who don't care enough about the tax break and still won't vote
are most likely the same people who couldn't tell you the candidates names, let
alone discuss the issues.
Just my $.02
-justin
JOHN BILDERBURGER III
On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 03:18:35 GMT, lpu...@netcom.com (Lance Purple)
wrote:
>>jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote:
>>> d) go into a booth and mark "I decline" or "I support none of the
>>> available candidates" (I'm not sure about the wording that is best)
>>> e) go into a booth and vote for the available candidates (of your
>>> choice)
>
>It'd be better if we just had [] Yes and [] No boxes by each candidate;
>then you could vote Yes for your favorite three; No to all of them, etc.
>Any candidate who got more No than Yes votes would be disqualified; and
>whoever got the most Yes votes (after subtracting his/her No's) wins.
>
>L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)
Better yet, WHy not have a system like the example that follows....
1996 Ballot
___ CLINTON Yes, No
____DOLE YES, No
You are required by law to choose either or BOTH...
You can actually vote for Dole and Clinton or just one...
This would really fuck-up the people doing polls because they could
NEVER PREDICT an election with a process like this.
This would end all the polling bull shit and we could actually LISTEN
TO what "Tabacco" Dole, and Billy-Boy Clinton say....
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cris.com/~antirush
Member Of The "Order of Silent Killers" Since 1987
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
----
Shawn Spence
>
>For the record, I heard from a native Australian that they have mandatory voting
>and you are fined if you don't vote. i would also like proportional democracy
>where you have districts with say 10 representatives. If your party only wins
>30% of the vote, you get 3 reps. You could have more political parties
>represented and more interest. . .
Do you have any idea how little would be accomplished? Doesn't matter, we
have this document called the Constitution which makes what YOU want
impossible in this case
>Garry (%^{>
--
...and I thank you for your attention,
***DOLE*******FOR******PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!************************
NEW!!!!! DEMOCRATS on CLINTON!!!!!!! Week 1
Shawn Spence
161 Curl Drive "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually
Columbus, OH 43210 good. Do you realize that?"
spe...@mcnet.marietta.edu -Sen. Bob Kerrey-(D)Neb. Esquire, Jan '96
***********************************************************************
Lance Purple
JOHN BILDERBURGER III <anti...@cris.com> wrote:
>Better yet, WHy not have a system like the example that follows....
>1996 Ballot
>___ CLINTON Yes, No
>____DOLE YES, No
>You are required by law to choose either or BOTH...
No, if they were the only two candidates on the ballot, and a majority
of voters said "No" to both, they should both be disqualified and a new
election held, say, three months later. Besides, it wouldn't just be
them; that's the whole point. It'd be something like:
1996 U.S. Presidential Ballot
DOLE (Rep) Yes [] No []
CLINTON (Dem) Yes [] No []
LAMM (Rfm) Yes [] No []
BROWNE (Lib) Yes [] No []
NADER (Grn) Yes [] No []
BUCHANAN (Tax) Yes [] No []
KEYES (Ind) Yes [] No []
LAROUCHE (Ind) Yes [] No []
WOLF BOY (Nut) Yes [] No []
etc. ...
So that the odds of *nobody* getting it would be fairly small, (unless
an unpopular incumbent ran unopposed), and the odds would be much less
stacked against a 3rd party win. This'd keep the Big 2 on their toes,
and in "hot" races like U.S. President, state governor, etc. I'd expect
there to usually be runoffs.
It is obviously too late to implement this in 1996 or 2000; and anyway,
we should test this out at the city and state levels first. But can
anyone come up with fatal flaws right now against this scheme? From
my viewpoint, it'd do a *lot* to get the voters AND party nominations
committees off their asses, and start choosing the best candidates for
the job, instead of the lesser of two evils.
------------------------------
L. Purple (lpu...@netcom.com)
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote in article
<4t0jen$p...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>...
> Ok, since I apparently started this by commenting about mandatory voting
in
> another thread (something about Area 51, I believe), I'd better explain
> myself more completely.
I agree with you completely
I am tired of hearing people gripe about this or that and when you ask
them if they voted they say, no
I too consider voting a duty rather than a right. I registered at 18 and
have voted in every national, state, and local election since
The idea of not voting is simply not an option for me.
SPHINX Technologies
In article <slrn44vauah...@mcnet.marietta.edu>,
Shawn Spence <spe...@mcnet.marietta.edu> wrote:
>>
>> ... I heard from a native Australian that they have mandatory voting
>>and you are fined if you don't vote. i would also like proportional democracy
>>where you have districts with say 10 representatives. If your party only wins
>>30% of the vote, you get 3 reps. You could have more political parties
>>represented and more interest. . .
>
>Do you have any idea how little would be accomplished? Doesn't matter, we
>have this document called the Constitution which makes what YOU want
>impossible in this case
>>Garry (%^{>
>
... And let's hope we can resist efforts to alter the meaning of that
Constitution by methods other than actual amendment.
As for changes in voting procedures, the one change *I* would most like to
see is a well-designed application of modern technology, specifically
digital signature technology, to make vote fraud impossible in the future.
Which, alas, it has not been in all cases in the past.
-John Sangster
Wellesley Hills, MA
Garry Bryan
Shawn Spence (spe...@mcnet.marietta.edu) wrote:
: >
: >For the record, I heard from a native Australian that they have mandatory voting
: >and you are fined if you don't vote. i would also like proportional democracy
: >where you have districts with say 10 representatives. If your party only wins
: >30% of the vote, you get 3 reps. You could have more political parties
: >represented and more interest. . .
: Do you have any idea how little would be accomplished? Doesn't matter, we
: have this document called the Constitution which makes what YOU want
: impossible in this case
: >Garry (%^{>
Actually, proportional representation is used in most European nations. The only
holdouts to two party systems are the US, Great Britain and it's protectorates,
and Austrailia. I do not believe that the Constitution specifically prohibits
this form of representation, but I'll have to re-read the fine print ;). . .
Garry (%^{>
Dylan Jones
What about Lazzar - he worked their, and claims to have worked on
et-vehicles ...
Mdme. K
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>In article <31F13F...@i-link.net>, Slogan <slo...@i-link.net> wrote:
>>First of all, NO ONE who worked at Area 51 has ever claimed that alien
>>vehicles are tested there.
>Of course no one who REALLY worked there... but as is the norm
>in the lunatic fringe, there are always people who invent such
>claims totally out of thin air. And as is also the norm, there
>are people stupid and gullible enough to believe them.
> >Area S4 (NEAR Area 51, but NOT Area 51) is
>Is nothing but an empty section of desert.
Ahhhh...I psee....Deano is now claiming he's been to Area 51?
Or perhaps he's been wandering around in the desert too long.
xox
Mdme. K.
Joseph Bui
The following post is specifically for US citizens. My appologies to anyone
who lives on the continents of North or South America and is offended by my
using "americans" or "america" when I mean "US citizens" or "USA."
Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
> Everyone get out the card given to him by some guy who gave him 5 bucks
> to vote as indicated on the card, and vote. In no uncertain terms,
> mandatory voting in this country would be a disaster. Today! I mean
> right now, 40% of voters don't know that Bob Dole is over 70. How
> can sentient beings be this uninformed considering the deluge of
> statements in the media about how old Bob Dole is. If they don't
> know he is over 70 you can bet your bippy they don't know the positions
> of either candidate on any issue of the day and most certainly don't
> have a clue as to how to save SS or Medicare from bankruptcy. Yet
> you want them to vote for bleep's sake. Give us all a break!
Vote buying is illegal current, I don't see why mandatory voting would make
it legal...
Maybe we should mandate voting exams so that stupid people can't vote.
How's that? Sounds like pre-civil rights era discrimination to me.
If you don't want to live in a country full of stupid people, then start
voting for people who will increase education funding.
The reason I want everyone in the country to vote is quite simple. I agree
with you that almost everyone (including me) doesn't have a solution to
medicare, SS or any other aspect of the gov't. If everyone had to vote,
though, politicians would have to start catering to the needs of the REAL
majority, not the "moral majority" or the "silent majority" or whatever
else. You know the phrase "silent majority" is much better phrased as
"non-voting majority," which is exactly what G. Bush's campaign probably
meant: "Mr. Bush is here to represent everyone who DOESN'T vote."
I would rather have a government that serves the numerical majority rather
than the economic majority. I have faith in humans. I believe humans are
capable of independant thought. I believe that all humans are driven by the
same purpose (survival), and that given the chance to exert some control
over their situation, those who are not surviving in our society will vote
in their own self-interests. I think that is the best way to choose the
government for our society. Make everyone make a choice (or make an
intentional abstenation).
Mdme. K
Sparkchaser <heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
>I was stationed nearby @ Tonopah Test Range (37th TFW, USAF), and the
>only reason they exempted that area from giving up a chemical inventory
>is because they exempt most of the rest of the Nevada test complexes from
>inspections of any kind. Why? What goes on in there is a question of
>national security, and not the place for pissing contests or loud-mouthed
>congressmen (only a few know the area, and they are members of the
>security oversight committee that watch over all classified projects.)
Hey, Sparkle, mind getting out your PCS orders and reading the 'to'
box. (Hint: it's on the upper right side) I think you may find it
mentions 'Nellis'. Considering Nellis isn't even close to being a
secret base, you'd have *NO* knowledge of the 'doings' in a secret
base hundreds of miles away! You're blowing smoke, Bucky.
>There is very little interchange of information between areas, and I have
>no exact knowledge of anybody else's area but the one I was in. But I do
>know this for damn sure: There are NO, I repeat, NO UFO's. There are also
>no super-secret-chemical-kill-'em-all type labratories neither. Anyone
>who believes either has been watching too much "X-files", to be of any
>use to society.
'Cuse me Sparky, but you're confusing the 'viewing audience'. If you
have 'no exact knowledge of anybody else's area' how do you know there
are no disc-shaped UFO type craft or labs in the areas you admittedly
have no knowledge about?
Sheesh...are you full of it!
Mdme. K.
Cluster User
In article <4t74n8$j...@hyperion.mfltd.co.uk>, dy...@zymurgy.org (Dylan
Jones) wrote:
> dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
> >In article <31F13F...@i-link.net>, Slogan <slo...@i-link.net> wrote:
[evidently a bunch of other people wrote too, including me in this next
paragraph]
> >>> It sounds like you presume that no such spacecraft ever crashed here. But
> >>> then you also seem to go on the presumption that if one had come, it
> >>> crashed because of lightning.
> >>That's a lot of conjecture.
> >That is a lot of wildly ignorant insanity. Lightning?! Sheesh.
Actually, Dean, it was the Skeptic I was responding to that was obsessed
with the idea of lightning (or "lightening" as it was called) taking out a
UFO.If you'd been deer hunting, we'd say you'd just blown away someone's
cow. Thanks for the help, but I still try to refrain from inferring
anyone, even Skeptics, ignorant or insane.
> > >The explanations I usually hear involve the effects of active radar on
> > >"their" guidance systems, as opposed to passive radar
>
> >Thats even more insane than the lightning nonsense.
> >BTW, radar by its very nature is "active".
>
> > > (a subject on which I'm no expert).
> >Obviously.
>
> >>> I'm surprised any alien UFOs ever de-cloak- why should they? I see no
> >>The "cloak" effect, as you described in Star Trek terminology, is
> >>supposedly achieved by a specific alignment of the antigravitational
> >>amplifiers, which assumably affects how the vehicles transport
>
> >Oh geez, that is like quoting from the StarFleet Technical Manual.
I haven't followed star trek in +30 years, nor do I read any science
fiction at all, except for Sagan's debunker books. I think what is
happening around us is more interesting. What is clear is that in this
century "stealth", from camouflage to modern radar-invisibility and
beyond, has been one of or the key line(s) of development. We have even
been willing in the development to compromise various aircraft
characteristics usually deemed critical (like speed, stability, and
operational ceiling) to achieve our present stealth because, in essence,
now that we have the technology to achieve near invisibility to all of
anybody's best long-range sensing systems, we have a clear superiority
over any other military force. That is, once you have near-complete
stealth, not much more matters. And the ultimate stealth would be one that
not only beat radar, but also had no optical visibility, no heat or
radiation sig, no sound... a perfect "cloak of invisibility." I think it
likely that any vehicle technological enough to have come here from
somewhere off this planet has probably made strides toward such described
"perfect invisibility", and probably uses it a lot. Why? Because it turns
out to be the perfect offensive and defense, it puts the user in ultimate
control. And it seems plainly obvious, in the case of UFOs visiting us,
that when flying over someone else's territory, you would like to at least
be able to be invisible if you chose. Militaries around the world would
give anything to do this, and will probably come fairly close to achieving
it in the next century. Up to now, when we couldn't manage that, we have
tried to be very fast and very high, the "you might see me but you
(probably) can't catch me" approach used from the U2 to your beloved
Blackbird (accidentally an important stealth innovation), culminating with
modern sattelite recon. Has it's place, but let's face it, nothing could
beat hovering over anything you want without anybody being able to see
you.
So I go back to my premise: if there are alien craft in our atmosphere, I
would think it remarkable that they would ever "de-cloak", if they have
any development at all in stealth. Because we are not a friendly species.
Try flying a cessna over the white house if you want some idea of what it
must be like for an alien coming over american territory.
Philip HOENIG
jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) writes:
>The reason I want everyone in the country to vote is quite simple. I agree
>with you that almost everyone (including me) doesn't have a solution to
>medicare, SS or any other aspect of the gov't. If everyone had to vote,
>though, politicians would have to start catering to the needs of the REAL
>majority, not the "moral majority" or the "silent majority" or whatever
>else. You know the phrase "silent majority" is much better phrased as
>"non-voting majority," which is exactly what G. Bush's campaign probably
>meant: "Mr. Bush is here to represent everyone who DOESN'T vote."
>I would rather have a government that serves the numerical majority rather
>than the economic majority. I have faith in humans. I believe humans are
>capable of independant thought. I believe that all humans are driven by the
>same purpose (survival), and that given the chance to exert some control
>over their situation, those who are not surviving in our society will vote
>in their own self-interests. I think that is the best way to choose the
>government for our society. Make everyone make a choice (or make an
>intentional abstenation).
Although this sounds good human imperfections, as always, ruin what would
otherwise be a fine plan. The trouble with mandatory voting is that you get
votes from people who *don't care*. These kind of votes are like some form of
white noise that drowns out the democratic signal, as it were.
Even though it's possible to not vote (just get your name ticked off at a
polling booth, write "Mandatory voting is a blight on democracy" or whatever
you want on the ballot paper and leave it for the counters to read), the number
of informal votes in every Australian election shows that very few of us do so.
Note: I am not suggesting that my fellow Australians should do so. Suggesting
such a thing is illegal.
Perhaps the most frightening aspect of it all is the number of Donkey votes....
Stoner
G.Flis wrote:
> snip
> In article <01bb7981.a90d16d0$1b643a9d@berrym133>, ber...@microsoft.com says...
> >
> >
> >--snip
> >The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
> >the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> >> jb...@scd.hp.com (Joseph Bui) wrote in article
> ><4t0jen$p...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>...
> >> Ok, since I apparently started this by commenting about mandatory voting
> >in
> >> another thread (something about Area 51, I believe), I'd better explain
> >> myself more completely.
>
> > We are also free to not have an opinion or care, as distasteful as that is to
> me personally and many others... Let those who care to know about the issues
> decide who's elected and what laws are passed....
Those who want to exercise their rights to not vote will fill in the
box that says abstain, pass, whatever. A vote of Neither. Then they
should be happy.
Problems though. Mandatory, what then...Fine those who don't
vote? More money to state/government (Voting should work the same for
both)? Good way to grab cash with GOOD intentions instead of trying
to twist the pennies out of us with taxes.
Then there's how to get the people to vote. They don't now. How
about the government giving everyone a free day on the internet.
You get to any nearby computer, they're in libraries, schools,
homes, even coffee shops now! You get online to www.vote.gov or
something, login with SS#, current address Need one, no homeless
voters, -or- maybe we WANT the homeless to vote too. Hmmm?????)
Up pops the page, you get full details on each candidate, EXTENSIVE
INFORMATION!!! We want views on a LOT of issues, not just the hot ones
of the week ala CNN and local news BS. Cut through the hype and hear the
truth behind the men for once. You'd get vital stats, hell, even a full
bio. Medical info, whatever the people NEED to know to make an
EDUCATED choice.
No more going to vote for 525, 142c, 367, 428, whatever. NO, you're
voting for a specific subject, with important freedom-changing
consequences behind it. Yes, we want the whole country to vote, but
to have the masses vote by what they know, or by what the MEDIA lets
them know, or by what THE GOVERNMENT wants them to know...That
would be a GRAVE mistake.
I am all for mandatory voting, and mandatory registration at DMV.
You should get issued a voter reg. card on your 18th birthday, a
present from Uncle Sam. Thank you very much. Elvis has left the building
--
Just five minutes of your time could be all it takes...
to end hemp/cannabis prohibition.
Visit http://www.drcnet.org/map/
Terry Romine
> Cluster User (cluste...@yale.edu) wrote:
> > I don't get it- you are anti-congressman? Perhaps you think maybe we
> > should just skip elected positions altogether in this country? I guess I
> > could agree that the apathy with which we approach voting renders this
> > system virtually worthless.
>
> The problem isn't the apathy with which we approach voting, the problem is
> that we simply don't vote (most of us, that is). Don't you think mandatory
> voting attendance would be an interesting experiment?
>
[snip]
What I'd like to see is everyone in a given state vote non-bipartison and
then see how VoteScam would convert those votes. Wouldn't that be an eye
opener?
************************************************************
** ... something is happening and you don't know what it is;
** Do you, Mr. Jones? * R. Zimmerman
Dean Adams
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>> >Oh geez, that is like quoting from the StarFleet Technical Manual.
>I haven't followed star trek in +30 years, nor do I read any science
>fiction at all
Wow, that is SAD! You have missed out on a great deal of fine work,
and some of the most imaginative minds in the writing business.
It seems you are subconsciously getting your SF "fix" from UFOism.
Unfortunately UFOlogy is extremely BAD speculative fiction, unlike
some of the greats you have missed out on such as Asimov, Clarke,
Niven, Silverberg, Pohl, Harrison, etc. etc. etc.
> I think what is happening around us is more interesting.
Sure, but I find it VERY odd for someone who have totally
abandoned the entire genre in question. It's almost as
though there was some pathology behind it...
> What is clear is that in this century "stealth", from camouflage
> to modern radar-invisibility and beyond, has been one of or the
> key line(s) of development.
For the latter part of the century perhaps.
> We have even been willing in the development to compromise various
> aircraft characteristics usually deemed critical (like speed, stability,
> and operational ceiling) to achieve our present stealth
It is not a compromise, since high speed and altitude were desirable
qualities in the past for the specific purpose of evading and eluding
radars and radar guided weapons.
You can see in the B-1 program the direct effect of the changes that
had to be made to that ideology. The B-1 went from a high altitude
supersonic brute-force attack bomber, to the B-1B a low altitude,
radar evading, terrain following penetrator.
> we have the technology to achieve near invisibility to all of
>anybody's best long-range sensing systems, we have a clear superiority
>over any other military force.
Yes.
> And the ultimate stealth would be one that not only beat radar,
> but also had no optical visibility, no heat or radiation sig,
> no sound... a perfect "cloak of invisibility."
There are a myraid of technologies required to accomplish that
feat however... but each have been under development, to varying
degrees.
>I think it
>likely that any vehicle technological enough to have come here from
>somewhere off this planet has probably made strides toward such described
>"perfect invisibility", and probably uses it a lot. Why?
Why indeed. That sounds like you are projecting an awful
lot of HUMAN sensibilities on these so-called aliens.
>modern sattelite recon. Has it's place, but let's face it, nothing could
>beat hovering over anything you want without anybody being able to see
>you.
Some of the current crop of UAV programs are close to that.
>So I go back to my premise: if there are alien craft in our atmosphere, I
>would think it remarkable that they would ever "de-cloak", if they have
>any development at all in stealth.
IF indeed, since it is impossible to know or predict if
any alien species would have such a capability.
> Because we are not a friendly species.
What would they care? Their technology would already have to
be significantly in advance of ours for them to even get here.
>Try flying a cessna over the white house if you want some idea of what it
>must be like for an alien coming over american territory.
FYI... "Cessna" aliens would be lucky to even get off their own planet,
let alone traversing the galaxy and coming to this stinkin' rock.
Terry Romine
In article
<cluster_user-2...@commons6-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>,
cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User) wrote:
[snip]
> So I go back to my premise: if there are alien craft in our atmosphere, I
> would think it remarkable that they would ever "de-cloak", if they have
> Try flying a cessna over the white house if you want some idea of what it
> must be like for an alien coming over american territory.
And you could imagine that if two "saucers" were cloaked and hovering
unbeknowns to each other, wouldn't that explain the posibility of them
colliding over Roswell?
leave us alone!
Have you people forgotton about the Constitution? I'm sorry, but
its people like you who eventualy mess everything up by sticking
your "dirty little fingers in everyones pie". Mind your own
buisness and leave us alone!
--
someone who still fights for freedom from idiots like you!
cmo...@pacificnet.net
Who's "us?" And which "us" are you excluding?
Carol
Howard S. Hamilton
In article <tromine-2507...@a17-221-40-181.apple.com>, tro...@apple.com says...
>
>What I'd like to see is everyone in a given state vote non-bipartison and
>then see how VoteScam would convert those votes. Wouldn't that be an eye
>opener?
>
>** ... something is happening and you don't know what it is;
>** Do you, Mr. Jones? * R. Zimmerman
What are you talking about when you say non-bipartisan? What do you mean.
--
Howard S. Hamilton
ho...@tamu.edu
html.tamu.edu/~hsh2760 |
-------------------------