Limbaugh tiipped his hand. I know I shouldn't listen.
Citing a story that showed Republicans had to win four extremely tight races just to get even in the Senate he said the polls mean nothing.
"It will all come down to voter fraud," he said.
The first sign that rock solid smugness and confidence is starting to crack. The Republicans may not be losing both houses, but he's looking for someone -- instead of the Republicans -- to blame in advance in case they do.
The Wellstone -- Coleman race was not among the four he listed. The story had Wellstone ahead by six or seven points.
Just got a call from the Coleman tape recorder.
"Hold for an important call," said the human being, before he hit the Play button.
Whether the Republicans win or lose the Senate is really not the story. If Republicans stay right where they are after the election it is a victory over history. Generally the party out of power loses big in midterm elections. Remember 1994? That was a big loss.
In reality, much more is at stake than many Americans suppose. Too many people seem to regard voting as a form of personal expression, rather than as a sobering responsibility to the country as a whole, including future generations.
***
Can people who can't be bothered to register in advance, or to mark their ballots correctly in the voting booth, be trusted with preserving a nation and a heritage for which many Americans before them have fought and died? Can people whose mental level is so low that they must be accompanied into the voting booth by caretakers be given responsibility for making historic decisions for others when they are not even able to be responsible for themselves?
Mr. Sowell is an elitist snob, extremely pleased with himself.
Scratch deeper, and you might find that resents the idea that people who do not own property are allowed to vote, or their votes get equal weight of property owners.
Maybe if you thought about it you might come to the same conslusion that uninformed or incompetent people shoul not be voting. But of course the uninformed and incompetent tend to support the same side of issues that you do.
and how do you determine who's uninformed, jethro?
Maybe if they don't know the names of the candidates. Maybe if they don't know what the issues are. Maybe if you tried you could come up with a few ideas yourself. I see you do not have a problem with keeping the incompetent from voting. That surprises me.
that all depends on what you define incompetent as. i suspect, given your rantings here, that very few people would qualify as competent enough to vote in your opinion, and that i would not be one of those people.
Wow! Look, another worthless poll that doesn't show anything! It's not an attack on you, Rick. I know you are using it to make a point and that's not what I am jabbing at. I just find it amazing that only 1,000 people (only 500 for the first question) were polled and now there is suddenly enough information to determine the outcome of the entire 2002 election. If USA Today wants to endorse the Democrats for the elections, just do it! Don't perform a survey on a mere .0004% of the population and then say results are too close to call, but it looks like the Democrats are ahead. It's like predicting the outcome of the World Series based on the first 4 pitches of game one.
I guess I didn't read your meaning of incompetent correctly.
ares is far from incompetent.
That is your right to hold that opinion, JT. But if you go back and look at the post ares wrote he is the one that brought it up.
ares wrote: that all depends on what you define incompetent as. i suspect, given your rantings here, that very few people would qualify as competent enough to vote in your opinion, and that i would not be one of those people.
Hmm, and you're the one who gave your opinion on a person's incompetency. We have our view of Ares, and we see him as not being incompetent. In my mind, that pushes my view of you towards more of a negative perspective.
Hmm, and you're the one who gave your opinion on a person's incompetency. So someone can bring up an issue and I am not supposed to have an opinion on it?We have our view of Ares, and we see him as not being incompetent. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Haven't you ever had anyone disagree with your opinion before?In my mind, that pushes my view of you towards more of a negative perspective. That's fine by me. Soon, no doubt, you will positively have a negative opinion about me. That is fine. As I said before everyone is welcome to their opinion.
i'm just thankful jethro that the world doesn't revolve around your definition of comptence, because if it did, everyone who wasn't a right-wing extremist loonie would be locked up.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion. I'm just throwing my opinion into the ring. I have good friends here, who I admire. I'll stick up for my friends and my values.
i'm just thankful jethro that the world doesn't revolve around your definition of comptence, because if it did, everyone who wasn't a right-wing extremist loonie would be locked up.
If you knew what my definition of comptenece was maybe you would think differently. But then again I just might define a left wing extremist loonie incompetent. I'll give it some more thought.
............the U.S. and its allies must penalize Saddam for deceiving inspectors and trying to get the bomb, but make North Korea pay a price (beyond unplugging our misguided nuclear and oil bribes) for its nuclear cheating on the NPT. We certainly should not fool ourselves again into thinking that further bribes or continuing our current energy payoffs to Pyongyang will earn anything but its contempt and more cheating.
Instead, the U.S. and like-minded nations should go to the U.N. (before North Korea threatens to pull out of the NPT — again) and insist that it quickly open up and disarm. If it refuses, we must engage our friends (rather than Pyongyang) to isolate and contain North Korea until the regime and the nuclear threat it presents goes the way of the Soviet Empire................
Ormond Otvos "Merit Voting: Qualifying Voters" 9/24/02 10:04pm
This came up recently for me as I was discussing the ballot initiative in CA that would set up same-day voter registration-- which I favor, as long as the potential for fraud is somehow dealt with. Howevere, the resounding view of those I was discussing it with was that it was a bad idea. The first reason they gave was fraud ("We have 3 million illegals in this state who'd all be voting!"). The second reason centered around the concept of competence-- that voters who couldn't be bothered to register by a set deadline (never minding the fact that election day is still a set deadline) wouldn't be educated, responsible, "desirable" voters. They wouldn't have read through the voter's packet, have considered the issues, etc. I pointed out that most voters, even those who had registered like responsible people, probably hadn't read the packets or thoroughly examined all the things they would be voting on, and once you start down that road, you inevitably end up with the question of what the standard would be if we were to set an "educated voter" standard.
Would it be knowing your own name, or knowing JFK wasn't running? Or would it be being able to read and write to some certain level? Or maybe it should just be those who have voted in previous elections, since if you have skipped voting before, you clearly aren't fully on board with your responsibility as a citizen.
I pointed out that the first time most people vote, they are usually fairly ignorant, voting-wise, as compared to later on in their voting career-- i.e., experienced, practicing voters get better at it over time (in theory). For example, the first time I voted, I was naive enough to believe that voting for Democrats wasn't a total waste of time. Now I know better (Thanks Bill Clinton!). Plus, I was 20 the first time I voted, and simply knew less about politics. I think most people at 20 have spent a distinct minority of their life thinking about politics, or even being aware of it. People at 30 have had relatively more experience, and so on. In theory, a 60-year-old who has been actively voting since youth is a much more skilled and prepared voter. They have been able to observe the impact of all their previous votes, have seen all sorts of different outcomes and political experiments, etc. If "quality of vote" was seriously considered as a criteria, then first-time voters would score pretty low.
Then there's the matter of civic engagement. There are zillions of ways that people can have a greater or lesser investment in, or connection with government and civil society. Someone who works for a non-profit has a stake that someone who doesn't doesn't. Someone who runs a non-profit has an even greater stake. Same for running a business, being married, having kids, owning a car, and a nearly infinite list of potential criteria that affect how much a person has to win or lose (i.e., has at stake) in an election. It would seem like a voting system based on merit could naturally be read to involve a rating system based on such criteria. So your vote wouldn't be one vote, but rather a vote with some amount of weight to it. You'd have a voting "score" which would determine how much impact your vote would have.
In some ways, it almost sounds sensible. It seemed sensible enough to folks who used to attach voting to property ownership, which is one of those criteria that defines a level of civic involvement. It's just a much different way of setting things up.
I think the biggest problem with something like that is that it preassumes certain values of the elements of society. In the examples that we have had in history, "merit" criteria has amounted to those in power keeping their power by virtue of the system. Imagine if only property owners could vote now. Yikes!
You guys live in a same-day registration state-- has there been an exceptional amount of voter fraud as a result of the policy? Is there much dispute about it, or is it generally considered a good thing?
Given that Jesse used same-dayers to his advantage in getting elected, I figured that if there was lots of fraud, it would have come up in that election, and I never heard anything about that. What's the inside view?
You guys live in a same-day registration state-- has there been an exceptional amount of voter fraud as a result of the policy? Is there much dispute about it, or is it generally considered a good thing?
I wouldn't say there's a lot of it but yes, our same-day-registration makes it easier to commit voter fraud. There's actually a group called the Democratic Socialists that are rallying people to come here and vote illegally on election day because of our same-day-registration. They of course were Wellstone supporters.
Would you concur that a voter at 60 would be more adherant to party line than one at 20, just as a general statement, [dig omitted]
I'm not sure what you mean by more adherant to party line, but I think the answer to whatever you're trying to say is yes. If you could clarify your question I'd gladly confirm that, Rick.
Maybe you could reduce your insult ratio below 50% too. Maybe not.
Has there ever been a reasoned debate where "falderal and piffle" were an appropriate and productive contribution to the dialogue?
How about this part: Is there much dispute about it, or is it generally considered a good thing?
Well, depends on who you ask and who it is that is trying to commit the voter fraud. :-)
In general I don't think it's a huge issue or being abused in large numbers.
I'm pissed that the Democratic Socialists (or anyone for that matter) is taking advantage of our system.
I say we get rid of same day voter registration. It's so easy to register via other means in this state. If you're not responsible enough to get registered before election day, you lost your chance. It's not that I want to keep any legit voter from voting, I simply want to prevent fraud.
How long have you had that policy, and, given whatever level of abuses there have been, is it still popular?
We've had it as long as I can remember. When I moved back here in 1987 from Missouri I believe they had same day registration in place but I'm not sure.
I don't know if it's popular or not. I myself have always filled out a voter registration card when I've moved.
You know, I've never served on Jury duty. I was just wondering about this the other day. I asked my wife if she's ever had to serve and she said no, that she's never served either.
I figure one of these days I'll get picked but I find it strange that for 18 years, I've never had to serve.
Everyone I know has said they hated it. I figure it's my civic duty and I'll do it with a smile, even if I hate it myself.
I've been called once - but was excused as I was still doing child care in my home at the time. Inks has been called several times...and it always seemed to be shortly after his drivers license was renewed. We thought that might have something to do with it.
It's usually a week of sitting and waiting...and praying you don't get on some huge case that will last for weeks.
Limbaugh tiipped his hand. I know I shouldn't listen.
Citing a story that showed Republicans had to win four extremely tight races just to get even in the Senate he said the polls mean nothing.
"It will all come down to voter fraud," he said.
The first sign that rock solid smugness and confidence is starting to crack. The Republicans may not be losing both houses, but he's looking for someone -- instead of the Republicans -- to blame in advance in case they do.
The Wellstone -- Coleman race was not among the four he listed. The story had Wellstone ahead by six or seven points.
Just got a call from the Coleman tape recorder.
"Hold for an important call," said the human being, before he hit the Play button.
Whether the Republicans win or lose the Senate is really not the story. If Republicans stay right where they are after the election it is a victory over history. Generally the party out of power loses big in midterm elections. Remember 1994? That was a big loss.
Republicans can win some democrat seats like Missouri, Georgia and yes Minnesota.
History hasn't yet been written in this case jethro.
That is right, Rick. Maybe you should really think about that fact yourself.
In reality, much more is at stake than many Americans suppose. Too many people seem to regard voting as a form of personal expression, rather than as a sobering responsibility to the country as a whole, including future generations.
Can people who can't be bothered to register in advance, or to mark their ballots correctly in the voting booth, be trusted with preserving a nation and a heritage for which many Americans before them have fought and died? Can people whose mental level is so low that they must be accompanied into the voting booth by caretakers be given responsibility for making historic decisions for others when they are not even able to be responsible for themselves?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20021024.shtml
Mr. Sowell is an elitist snob, extremely pleased with himself.
Scratch deeper, and you might find that resents the idea that people who do not own property are allowed to vote, or their votes get equal weight of property owners.
Maybe if you thought about it you might come to the same conslusion that uninformed or incompetent people shoul not be voting. But of course the uninformed and incompetent tend to support the same side of issues that you do.
and how do you determine who's uninformed, jethro?
Well if you disagree with me, of course you're uninformed.
:-)
thats what i thought. :)
and how do you determine who's uninformed, jethro?
Maybe if they don't know the names of the candidates. Maybe if they don't know what the issues are. Maybe if you tried you could come up with a few ideas yourself. I see you do not have a problem with keeping the incompetent from voting. That surprises me.
Even the "incompetent" have a right to vote.
I think you'd get the most informed electorate by taxing people at the polls for the privilege of voting.
that all depends on what you define incompetent as. i suspect, given your rantings here, that very few people would qualify as competent enough to vote in your opinion, and that i would not be one of those people.
That would definetly apply to you, ares.
Even the "incompetent" have a right to vote.
Even those that don't know their names? What if they don't what year it is? What if they think JFK is running for office.
I guess I didn't read your meaning of incompetent correctly.
ares is far from incompetent.
yeah fuck you too, jethro.
thanks, jt.
The electorate is starting to break!
The Dow dropped what? 170 points today. Economic issues could mean problems for the GOP in the next two weeks.
There could be decisions made on election day, based on the climate of the moment.
Interesting time coming up.
Wow! Look, another worthless poll that doesn't show anything! It's not an attack on you, Rick. I know you are using it to make a point and that's not what I am jabbing at. I just find it amazing that only 1,000 people (only 500 for the first question) were polled and now there is suddenly enough information to determine the outcome of the entire 2002 election. If USA Today wants to endorse the Democrats for the elections, just do it! Don't perform a survey on a mere .0004% of the population and then say results are too close to call, but it looks like the Democrats are ahead. It's like predicting the outcome of the World Series based on the first 4 pitches of game one.
Ares incompetent? Am I in the wrong thread? I thought this was the politics thread, not the joke thread....
The Dow dropped what? 170 points today. Economic issues could mean problems for the GOP in the next two weeks.
So lets elect a bunch of Democrats that will tax us even more and push us into a deeper recession.
The happy days of Jimmy Carter. Good times, good, good times.
Those of us who are optimists believe that someday sanity will return to our society. Our media, our officials -- perhaps even our schools and colleges -- will begin to talk sense. Those of you who are young may live to see it.
I guess I didn't read your meaning of incompetent correctly.
ares is far from incompetent.
That is your right to hold that opinion, JT. But if you go back and look at the post ares wrote he is the one that brought it up.
ares wrote: that all depends on what you define incompetent as. i suspect, given your rantings here, that very few people would qualify as competent enough to vote in your opinion, and that i would not be one of those people.
and fuck you again, asshole. ares is a he.
ares is a he.
As if I care either way. But the point was that you brought up the issue of whether I thought you were incompetent, not I.
Hmm, and you're the one who gave your opinion on a person's incompetency. We have our view of Ares, and we see him as not being incompetent. In my mind, that pushes my view of you towards more of a negative perspective.
Hmm, and you're the one who gave your opinion on a person's incompetency. So someone can bring up an issue and I am not supposed to have an opinion on it?We have our view of Ares, and we see him as not being incompetent. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Haven't you ever had anyone disagree with your opinion before?In my mind, that pushes my view of you towards more of a negative perspective. That's fine by me. Soon, no doubt, you will positively have a negative opinion about me. That is fine. As I said before everyone is welcome to their opinion.
i'm just thankful jethro that the world doesn't revolve around your definition of comptence, because if it did, everyone who wasn't a right-wing extremist loonie would be locked up.
I never said you couldn't have an opinion. I'm just throwing my opinion into the ring. I have good friends here, who I admire. I'll stick up for my friends and my values.
i'm just thankful jethro that the world doesn't revolve around your definition of comptence, because if it did, everyone who wasn't a right-wing extremist loonie would be locked up.
If you knew what my definition of comptenece was maybe you would think differently. But then again I just might define a left wing extremist loonie incompetent. I'll give it some more thought.
a scary thought, as it seems that anyone who's left of you qualifies as extreme.
No not at all. For instance JT is to the left of me and I don't think he is extreme. He is just a liberal!!!!!!
i see how it is. there's jethro. just to his left there's liberals. and beyond them are the extremists. gotcha.
Come on Jethro, would a Liberal beat up on Wellstone the way I do?
Of course I beat up on Dubya too but for different reasons.
Whatever. You can call me Alice for all I care.
You don't like the name Shirley?!!!!
Shirley's ok.
I prefer Eleanor, although my stage name is Miss Kitty.
I have always liked the name Beulah!
Bush saves the Day!
A Republican response to the Democrat's cartoon showing Bush pushing a little old lady over a cliff.
Rregarding Korea,
............the U.S. and its allies must penalize Saddam for deceiving inspectors
and trying to get the bomb, but make North Korea pay a price (beyond
unplugging our misguided nuclear and oil bribes) for its nuclear
cheating on the NPT. We certainly should not fool ourselves again
into thinking that further bribes or continuing our current energy
payoffs to Pyongyang will earn anything but its contempt and more
cheating.
Instead, the U.S. and like-minded nations should go to the U.N.
(before North Korea threatens to pull out of the NPT — again) and
insist that it quickly open up and disarm. If it refuses, we must
engage our friends (rather than Pyongyang) to isolate and contain
North Korea until the regime and the nuclear threat it presents goes
the way of the Soviet Empire................
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sokolski102402.asp
Anothe good article
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson102502.asp
like i said yesterday morning, i expected yesterday to be a boring work day. it was. that was just the leftover venting this morning.
Ormond Otvos "Merit Voting: Qualifying Voters" 9/24/02 10:04pm
This came up recently for me as I was discussing the ballot initiative in CA that would set up same-day voter registration-- which I favor, as long as the potential for fraud is somehow dealt with. Howevere, the resounding view of those I was discussing it with was that it was a bad idea. The first reason they gave was fraud ("We have 3 million illegals in this state who'd all be voting!"). The second reason centered around the concept of competence-- that voters who couldn't be bothered to register by a set deadline (never minding the fact that election day is still a set deadline) wouldn't be educated, responsible, "desirable" voters. They wouldn't have read through the voter's packet, have considered the issues, etc. I pointed out that most voters, even those who had registered like responsible people, probably hadn't read the packets or thoroughly examined all the things they would be voting on, and once you start down that road, you inevitably end up with the question of what the standard would be if we were to set an "educated voter" standard.
Would it be knowing your own name, or knowing JFK wasn't running? Or would it be being able to read and write to some certain level? Or maybe it should just be those who have voted in previous elections, since if you have skipped voting before, you clearly aren't fully on board with your responsibility as a citizen.
I pointed out that the first time most people vote, they are usually fairly ignorant, voting-wise, as compared to later on in their voting career-- i.e., experienced, practicing voters get better at it over time (in theory). For example, the first time I voted, I was naive enough to believe that voting for Democrats wasn't a total waste of time. Now I know better (Thanks Bill Clinton!). Plus, I was 20 the first time I voted, and simply knew less about politics. I think most people at 20 have spent a distinct minority of their life thinking about politics, or even being aware of it. People at 30 have had relatively more experience, and so on. In theory, a 60-year-old who has been actively voting since youth is a much more skilled and prepared voter. They have been able to observe the impact of all their previous votes, have seen all sorts of different outcomes and political experiments, etc. If "quality of vote" was seriously considered as a criteria, then first-time voters would score pretty low.
Then there's the matter of civic engagement. There are zillions of ways that people can have a greater or lesser investment in, or connection with government and civil society. Someone who works for a non-profit has a stake that someone who doesn't doesn't. Someone who runs a non-profit has an even greater stake. Same for running a business, being married, having kids, owning a car, and a nearly infinite list of potential criteria that affect how much a person has to win or lose (i.e., has at stake) in an election. It would seem like a voting system based on merit could naturally be read to involve a rating system based on such criteria. So your vote wouldn't be one vote, but rather a vote with some amount of weight to it. You'd have a voting "score" which would determine how much impact your vote would have.
In some ways, it almost sounds sensible. It seemed sensible enough to folks who used to attach voting to property ownership, which is one of those criteria that defines a level of civic involvement. It's just a much different way of setting things up.
I think the biggest problem with something like that is that it preassumes certain values of the elements of society. In the examples that we have had in history, "merit" criteria has amounted to those in power keeping their power by virtue of the system. Imagine if only property owners could vote now. Yikes!
You guys live in a same-day registration state-- has there been an exceptional amount of voter fraud as a result of the policy? Is there much dispute about it, or is it generally considered a good thing?
Given that Jesse used same-dayers to his advantage in getting elected, I figured that if there was lots of fraud, it would have come up in that election, and I never heard anything about that. What's the inside view?
" I was naive enough to believe that voting for Democrats wasn't a total waste of time. Now I know better."
Falderal and piffle.
"In theory, a 60-year-old who has been actively voting since youth is a much more skilled and prepared voter"
Would you concur that a voter at 60 would be more adherant to party line than one at 20, just as a general statement, Mr. Out-there-free-thinker Guy?
Rick, shouldn't a person vote their conscious?
You guys live in a same-day registration state-- has there been an exceptional amount of voter fraud as a result of the policy? Is there much dispute about it, or is it generally considered a good thing?
I wouldn't say there's a lot of it but yes, our same-day-registration makes it easier to commit voter fraud. There's actually a group called the Democratic Socialists that are rallying people to come here and vote illegally on election day because of our same-day-registration. They of course were Wellstone supporters.
I'm not sure what you mean by more adherant to party line, but I think the answer to whatever you're trying to say is yes. If you could clarify your question I'd gladly confirm that, Rick.
Maybe you could reduce your insult ratio below 50% too. Maybe not.
Has there ever been a reasoned debate where "falderal and piffle" were an appropriate and productive contribution to the dialogue?
How about this part: Is there much dispute about it, or is it generally considered a good thing?
How long have you had that policy, and, given whatever level of abuses there have been, is it still popular?
How about this part: Is there much dispute about it, or is it generally considered a good thing?
Well, depends on who you ask and who it is that is trying to commit the voter fraud. :-)
In general I don't think it's a huge issue or being abused in large numbers.
I'm pissed that the Democratic Socialists (or anyone for that matter) is taking advantage of our system.
I say we get rid of same day voter registration. It's so easy to register via other means in this state. If you're not responsible enough to get registered before election day, you lost your chance. It's not that I want to keep any legit voter from voting, I simply want to prevent fraud.
How long have you had that policy, and, given whatever level of abuses there have been, is it still popular?
We've had it as long as I can remember. When I moved back here in 1987 from Missouri I believe they had same day registration in place but I'm not sure.
I don't know if it's popular or not. I myself have always filled out a voter registration card when I've moved.
You know, I've never served on Jury duty. I was just wondering about this the other day. I asked my wife if she's ever had to serve and she said no, that she's never served either.
I figure one of these days I'll get picked but I find it strange that for 18 years, I've never had to serve.
Everyone I know has said they hated it. I figure it's my civic duty and I'll do it with a smile, even if I hate it myself.
I've been called once - but was excused as I was still doing child care in my home at the time. Inks has been called several times...and it always seemed to be shortly after his drivers license was renewed. We thought that might have something to do with it.
It's usually a week of sitting and waiting...and praying you don't get on some huge case that will last for weeks.