idrankwhat 0 #226 July 27, 2009 Quote Ah, I see... so all the whining in 2000 and 2004 by y'all was perfectly justified... Absolutely, being "leaders of the free world" during an information age where people can make $billions through arbitrage but still not being able to accurately count a vote is a fucking embarrassment. Quote but any doubts about 'The Won" and we're supposed to fuck off? There are no real doubts. This is pure politics and the fact that it gets any mention in the mainstream media is just plain sad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #227 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuote Ah, I see... so all the whining in 2000 and 2004 by y'all was perfectly justified... Absolutely, being "leaders of the free world" during an information age where people can make $billions through arbitrage but still not being able to accurately count a vote is a fucking embarrassment. Well, it was certainly embarassing for the Dems, seeing as how all the recounts supported the initial certification.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #228 July 27, 2009 Quote Well, it was certainly embarassing for the Dems, seeing as how all the recounts supported the initial certification. Thanks for reinforcing my point about this all being about political gamesmanship. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #229 July 27, 2009 Quote Quote Well, it was certainly embarassing for the Dems, seeing as how all the recounts supported the initial certification. Thanks for reinforcing my point about this all being about political gamesmanship. By all means - lets not let fact and math confuse us. How is it gamesmanship when the numbers supported the outcome?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #230 July 27, 2009 Quote By all means - lets not let fact and math confuse us. How is it gamesmanship when the numbers supported the outcome? Because my point is that it's an embarrassment to our country that we have this sort of problem at all. There is no excuse for not being able to hold an election, account for all of the votes accurately and be able to do so through a reliable, verifiable system. Trying to turn a nationwide embarrassment into Dem bashing is political gamesmanship. But that, after all, is all this thread is about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #231 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuote By all means - lets not let fact and math confuse us. How is it gamesmanship when the numbers supported the outcome? Because my point is that it's an embarrassment to our country that we have this sort of problem at all. There is no excuse for not being able to hold an election, account for all of the votes accurately and be able to do so through a reliable, verifiable system. Trying to turn a nationwide embarrassment into Dem bashing is political gamesmanship. But that, after all, is all this thread is about. I agree. I think people should be honest. I don't think they should cheat and defraud elctions. I also believe that peopl should not lie or twist the truth. But that is politics in and of its self. Why don't we just ban elections. That way we don't have to worry about voter fraud. We'll let Obama stay in office indefinately.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #232 July 27, 2009 Quote Why don't we just ban elections. That way we don't have to worry about voter fraud. We'll let Obama stay in office indefinately. I'd settle for voting machines with an auditable paper trail. Heck, DZ.com is more verifiable than the machines we use in our district. And I'm looking forward to a new president in seven years. Of course if you're interested in purging all of Congress and holding a publicly funded special election I would be most interested in joining in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #233 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuote Why don't we just ban elections. That way we don't have to worry about voter fraud. We'll let Obama stay in office indefinately. I'd settle for voting machines with an auditable paper trail. Heck, DZ.com is more verifiable than the machines we use in our district. And I'm looking forward to a new president in seven years. Of course if you're interested in purging all of Congress and holding a publicly funded special election I would be most interested in joining in. Actually - i think that Congress and the senate should have limits placed on their terms as well. 8 years is plenty -I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #234 July 27, 2009 Quote Actually - i think that Congress and the senate should have limits placed on their terms as well. 8 years is plenty - I could go with 8 or 12 but no more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #235 July 27, 2009 Quote Quote Actually - i think that Congress and the senate should have limits placed on their terms as well. 8 years is plenty - I could go with 8 or 12 but no more. AND decrease their lifetime bennies for the little work that they do.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #236 July 27, 2009 Quote Trying to turn a nationwide embarrassment into Dem bashing is political gamesmanship. The Dems and their gamesmanship was what MADE the 2000 election a nationwide embarassment.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #237 July 27, 2009 Quote AND decrease their lifetime bennies for the little work that they do. Keep this up and I'll end up buying you a six pack. I'd prefer to see them spend at least half their time in their districts, and their raises handled on local ballot initiatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #238 July 27, 2009 Quote Quote AND decrease their lifetime bennies for the little work that they do. Keep this up and I'll end up buying you a six pack. I'd prefer to see them spend at least half their time in their districts, and their raises handled on local ballot initiatives. Yep - otherwise they are not much different than the CEOs that are sociopaths . . .I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #239 July 27, 2009 QuoteQuote Trying to turn a nationwide embarrassment into Dem bashing is political gamesmanship. The Dems and their gamesmanship was what MADE the 2000 election a nationwide embarassment. No, there's plenty of embarrassment to spread around. It was disgraceful for the GOP to make the scene so tense that the recounts had to stop for safety reasons. It was shameful that the Supremes stopped the count while they considered it, and then eliminated it because there was no longer enough time to complete it (thanks to their stay). The only saving grace to the whole mess is that the multiple counts completed in the spring confirmed the result. Electronic voting speeds the results, somewhat improves the accuracy (but not as much as people think). But remains open to fraud, and if most people will still vote absentee with a paper ballot, doesn't fix the overall problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #240 July 27, 2009 >Why do you think that he has to do what you say? He doesn't. He's not running for office. Neither is Obama. He won, and is no longer running. Now, if his point is that it would certainly be NICE for Obama to post other stuff at his request (to "answer questions" or whatever) then he is surely willing to do what he asks others to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #241 July 27, 2009 I am far less concerned about the conduct (private or public) of some random dude posting on this web site than the conduct of the President of the United States. You're suggesting they're both deserving of the same level of scrutiny? Why isn't CNN doing stories on each of us, then?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #242 July 27, 2009 >I am far less concerned about the conduct (private or public) of some >random dude posting on this web site than the conduct of the President >of the United States. Me too! >You're suggesting they're both deserving of the same level of scrutiny? Nope. I am, however, suggesting that if you are demanding that someone post documents to prove something you wish proven, but are unwilling to do the same yourself, it makes your request somewhat hypocritical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #243 July 27, 2009 To suggest that I need to post documents regarding my own background and security related matters is not only irrelevant, but also unwise. I am not asking for the codes to launch a nuclear strike, I am not sending troops into harms way. I am not giving away trillions of dollars to the ultra rich, while taking it from those who have little. I am not teaching someones kids about physics and then lecturing about how awful GWB is and that he and the republicans are to blame for everything. I am not on a pulpit telling people to hate queers and harass the families of those who have died serving our nation. I am just a citizen who is a Veteran and trying to earn a living, which required me to get a background check. I passed it and that is the end of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #244 July 27, 2009 >I passed it and that is the end of it An excellent conclusion after you considered the facts of the matter. You provided proof to the government and they accepted it; you did your job, your background passed their checks, and now you no longer need to prove anything to anyone about your background. Let's hope you can see that that applies to people other than yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrendaHupp 0 #245 July 27, 2009 QuoteHe doesn't. He's not running for office. Neither is Obama. He won, and is no longer running. So is what you are saying is that once Obama became president he is no longer required to be a natural born citizen? If so, then you are wrong. If at any point during his term it was found out that he was not natural born citizen then he would have to be removed from office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #246 July 28, 2009 >So is what you are saying is that once Obama became president he is >no longer required to be a natural born citizen? He is no longer required to _prove_ he is a natural born citizen - just as once the background check on Warped was completed, he no longer needed to prove anything to anyone. The refusal of either party to post additional documentation on the web is proof of exactly nothing. > If at any point during his term it was found out that he was not >natural born citizen then he would have to be removed from office. Right. And if someone discovered that Warped had lied on his background check, he could lose his job/benefits/whatever. But once he passes it, his job is done; he no longer needs to defend himself from people on the web claiming he lied. If you want to go after him, it becomes _your_ job to prove that he falsified his paperwork. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #247 July 28, 2009 Correct and if it determined that Obama omitted or lied about anything that qualified him to be president, he then can be removed from office as he would no longer BE QUALIFIED Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #248 July 28, 2009 >Correct and if it determined that Obama omitted or lied about >anything that qualified him to be president, he then can be removed >from office as he would no longer BE QUALIFIED Well, he'd have to be impeached, as that's the only method we have of removing presidents from office. And for that you'd need, at an absolute minimum, proof he intentionally forged his birth certificate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #249 July 28, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Citizenship law can be really funny, in some countries dual citizenship is illegal and yet from personal experience of this it can be impossible to "not" break those laws. Are you talking about dual citizenship (the fact that the country recognizes you not only as its citizen but also citizen of a country B), or you're talking about more than one citizenship (when a country basically says it will only consider you its own citizen, no matter what other citizenships you've got)? I just cannot understand how dual citizenship could be illegal, as it seems to be only possible when two countries signed a treaty making it dual. I meant that in some countries you are not allowed to be a citizen of more than one country. I don't know the reason why countries have such laws. probably goes to the school of thought that a man cant serve two masters loyally.especially if both are against each other.light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #250 July 28, 2009 >probably goes to the school of thought that a man cant serve two masters loyally. I guess some of us don't see the government as our "master." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
