Regarding -- big brother -- coming soon -- sub-dermal RF chips... they will soon know where you go where you are, when you're there, how long -- what you buy etc.... we have the tech to make anything work if we want to. The problem is the coopting forces that are always behind these implementations. In theory, i'd prefer a computerized national election system -- but because Diebold and others, known criminal backers of Bush are making that technology -- I don't trust it a darn!

We need one election protocol that is national. One way to register, one way to vote. We need more than Tuesdays from 8am to 8pm, that's a joke to me. If the concern is people proving they are who they say they are -- then issue IDs to everyone when they are born. You are born, you get a SS#, a national ID #, your rectinal scan and finger print goes in to the system. And that stuff is secured with the highest of protections in technology and under law. Honestly, I'd be for getting people's genetic markers and other info in the system IF and ONLY IF, it could all be trusted which it can't. But that's too bad, because a lot of good could come about if we had ways to share and cross-refernece info. Medical matches, synch people with lost relatives -- lots of good could come, but it won't because our own govt isn't to be trusted and the corporations want their hands on all of that, so they can control and capitalize -- make another buck.

Philly the Kid wrote:Regarding -- big brother -- coming soon -- sub-dermal RF chips... they will soon know where you go where you are, when you're there, how long -- what you buy etc.... we have the tech to make anything work if we want to.

This will be helpful if I ever get kidnapped!

In case the party's fail safe mechanism for steeling it's own nominations from blacks works... I'm letting you in on a big IDEA.

Bumper Stickers!! (I call 'em "anywhere stickers")

"Bombinated not Obamanated"

Any lame idea will do. We just sit back and watch the greenbacks roll in.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Send regrets to James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas and John C. Calhoun.

Given this, you probably should just admit you could give a rat's ass about the integrity of the process, and enjoy all the "wins" this will help you achieve. I promise we won't think less of you.

Imagine if a path to citizenship for illegals was just passed and you were pleased by what you perceived to be a common sense public policy fix.

Then five people on here start railing on it as nothing more than a Democratic power grab since at least 2 of every 3 of the new voters will vote Dem.

Then you respond, no, despite the partisan outcome, I support it mostly for other reasons, like getting illegals out of the shadows and giving them access to health care and having them pay taxes and removing the stigma from them.

And then five people respond, the only reason you are doing this is because 2 out of every 3 new voters will be a Democrat.

How do you respond the third time?

I support this law because I think voter fraud is BAD. I find negative campaigning fascinating when both sides do it, and I love to follow the give and take. Negative campaigning is, however, different than voting under a name that is not your own because, and here's the kicker, it isn't illegal.

I don't care enough about how you all vote (unless you live in NJ-03) to spend my time here lying about what I believe to try and sway your opinions. The vast majority here are beyond saving anyhow. It's absurd anyway that it's that hard to believe that I could possibly support the actual intent of a law that was deemed Constitutional by a 6-3 margin yesterday. It's not like I'm sticking up for Stalin here or something.

I'm upfront and honest about when I'm being a cheesy partisan tool so that when I'm not you guys can see that too. Or at least that I'm not being overly partisan in my own mind. I really think this law is common sense. The fucking IDs are fucking free.

Hey, Hoya, my argument has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with the fact that, on close analysis, what you have claimed as common sense really isn't. IDs won't prevent whatever real voter fraud may be occurring. The court had to refer to practices engaged in the 1860s for precedent. So, even if you assign noble motives to the advocates of voter ID laws, it fails scrutiny as a reasonable policy.

McCain's superstitious ways

Don't try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won't take it from your hand because it's bad luck.

The Arizona senator also won't throw a hat on a bed — it means death will soon visit the household — but he regularly carries 31 cents in lucky change in his pocket.

...

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, N.H., gave Mr. McCain a lucky penny he'd found (heads up, of course) just before Mr. McCain won the New Hampshire primary, on Jan. 8.

Mr. McCain also pocketed a nickel he found outside his hotel in Columbia, S.C., just before that state's primary — his second primary win.

As for the quarter, "I think he just found that on the ground," Miss Buchanan said. "It's always what he finds, heads up."

Still, it's what she called "a lucky drummer boy quarter" — a 1976 bicentennial commemorative quarter.

He doesn't have a dime — a lucky one, that is — but he almost picked up one in January. When he went to the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr. McCain noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stooped for a closer look, but it was tails up — rejected.

...

On St. Patrick's Day in Chicago, "this guy had a lucky four-leaf clover that was laminated," Miss Buchanan said. "He pulled it out of his pocket and told the senator it had brought him good luck, and now the senator carries it around in his wallet."

This whole voter ID thing would be funny if it weren't so sad. Remember how not so long ago we were bemoaning the lack participation in elections and trying to figure out how to get more people to participate? And how one of the great ideas was to have people automatically registered and to vote online-which, of course these days means allowing anyone to vote with from their cell phone? Remember when that had some barriers to it, but actually seemed like a good idea?

Now it has become very important that everyone show up for personal inspection, their images compared to an officially produced ID. This has become so important because voter fraud is so much more rampant than it was in the old days, when you could count on urban party machines or rural boards of elections to ensure that nothing underhanded was taking place. This has been highlighted by the recent case where thousands of votes were fraudulently cast in the election in um-well, nowhere,actually, but the important point is SOMEONE SOMEWHERE MAY BE GETTING AWAY WITH SOMETHING !!!!. And we're against that.

This will, of course be easily rectified by requiring that voters present a driver's license or other official ID. I think there a are many BSG posters who can attest to the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to present a forged, altered or in any illegitimate ID in order to gain admittance to a restricted area. Thank God for this, or otherwise there would be thousands of underage youths obtaining restricted goods or entering public drinking houses. Even if it were possible to borrow or alter an illegitimate ID, it would never pass muster under the prying eyes of the experienced poll workers, some of whom (bless their hearts)have been observing elections since the days of Eisenhower and who, I'm sure, undergo rigorous year- round training and who, I'm equally sure, will prove adaptable, rigorous and completely even-handed in scrutinizing the eventual one third of the electorate who bother to show up for a presidential election once further obstacles are put in the way of exercising the right to vote..

LOL, exactly. It's a fix for a nonexistent problem that really isn't a fix and will cause less voter turnout. But say you're against it and the GOP will paint you as pro-voter fraud. Meanwhile, the electronic voting systems are completely insecure and a genuine threat.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Send regrets to James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas and John C. Calhoun.

Given this, you probably should just admit you could give a rat's ass about the integrity of the process, and enjoy all the "wins" this will help you achieve. I promise we won't think less of you.

Imagine if a path to citizenship for illegals was just passed and you were pleased by what you perceived to be a common sense public policy fix.

Then five people on here start railing on it as nothing more than a Democratic power grab since at least 2 of every 3 of the new voters will vote Dem.

Then you respond, no, despite the partisan outcome, I support it mostly for other reasons, like getting illegals out of the shadows and giving them access to health care and having them pay taxes and removing the stigma from them.

And then five people respond, the only reason you are doing this is because 2 out of every 3 new voters will be a Democrat.

How do you respond the third time?

I support this law because I think voter fraud is BAD. I find negative campaigning fascinating when both sides do it, and I love to follow the give and take. Negative campaigning is, however, different than voting under a name that is not your own because, and here's the kicker, it isn't illegal.

I don't care enough about how you all vote (unless you live in NJ-03) to spend my time here lying about what I believe to try and sway your opinions. The vast majority here are beyond saving anyhow. It's absurd anyway that it's that hard to believe that I could possibly support the actual intent of a law that was deemed Constitutional by a 6-3 margin yesterday. It's not like I'm sticking up for Stalin here or something.

I'm upfront and honest about when I'm being a cheesy partisan tool so that when I'm not you guys can see that too. Or at least that I'm not being overly partisan in my own mind. I really think this law is common sense. The $#@! IDs are $#@! free.

This is a pretty good response. I apologize for attacking *your* good faith--which I'm happy to credit you for and which isn't really at issue here anyway. You didn't write this law.

But you have to admit that the record of Bush-era Republicans (not to mention the Supreme Court ever since Bush v. Gore--the ultimate cheesy partisan outcome) doesn't inspire a whole lot of trust. Adding that to the very real implementation/operational issues TV, swish and Monkeyboy bring up that were ignored in favor of something that effectively restricts the franchise, and you can see how it looks like you might be the only one in good faith here.

My view has always been that it's best to let everyone vote at the polls, then verify anything that looks sketchy. (Myself, I had to cast a provisional ballot in February because my registration hadn't caught up with my moving last year; a few weeks afterward I got a letter saying my vote had been counted.) Most of the time it's not going to be close enough to matter; when it does, I think the public is happy both to wait for the outcome and to foot the bill for verification/recount. But the idea always should be more participation, not less. Imposing fairly severe penalties for vote fraud probably would have the desired deterrent effect; who's going to risk a $50,000 fine to cast a vote fraudulently?

VoxOrion wrote:How weird is it that none of you are talking about the whole Obama/Wright thing? The latest response from Obama is rough. This stuff, combined with Hillary, is not good for him - practically a HAMELS storm of "crap, I want people to change the subject!"

Frankly, I am a bit tired of the whole thing (plus I'm swamped at the office). I can see it now though - Obama goes into the tank over the next five weeks and the superdelegates swarm to Hillary to save the party. Guys like Wright, Sharpton and Jackson will scream racism when, in fact, it will be a black man that cost Obama the election.

This has to do with an actual election issue so I doubt the general media will much care:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080430/pl_ ... LWA8Gs0NUE

traderdave wrote:This has to do with an actual election issue so I doubt the general media will much care:

gas tax

Dude from Shell on the TV saying the only solution is ANWR.

Another take: (Subscription required, I think).

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

That really is pathetic. I wish Gore would've won way back when.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

traderdave wrote:This has to do with an actual election issue so I doubt the general media will much care:

gas tax

Dude from Shell on the TV saying the only solution is ANWR.

Maybe that guy is on to something; I mean, his opinion HAS to be completely unbiased, right? :roll:

If I'm Obama, I mail a copy of that article to every registered Democrat in Indiana.

Bucky wrote:Another take: (Subscription required, I think).

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

I dunno if the gas tax "holiday" would be "anti-discouraging" since it's only like 18 cents per gallon and for a few months, but it may ease the cost or at least stave off increases in the cost of food and such for a little bit... the costs tied to farming and distribution.

Bucky wrote:That really is pathetic. I wish Gore would've won way back when.

He did, but Justice Antonin Scalia says... "get over it" (of course, he also said torture doesn't violate the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the 8th amendment because it technically isn't "punishment").

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Bucky wrote:Another take: (Subscription required, I think).

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

I dunno if the gas tax "holiday" would be "anti-discouraging" since it's only like 18 cents per gallon and for a few months, but it may ease the cost or at least stave off increases in the cost of food and such for a little bit... the costs tied to farming and distribution.

Bucky wrote:That really is pathetic. I wish Gore would've won way back when.

He did, but Justice Antonin Scalia says... "get over it" (of course, he also said torture doesn't violate the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the 8th amendment because it technically isn't "punishment").

I saw that Scalia bit on Stewart last night and I could do nothing but shake my head. FWIW:

Punish - to treat harshly or injuriously
Torture - any severe physical or mental pain, agony, anguish

When you have to split hairs like these guys (i.e. Scalia, Ashcroft, Cheney) do, you know you are doing something wrong. The whole conversation reminded me of the college thing Ashcroft did that was posted before.

Message to Scalia, et al:
Look, the US is at war with terrorist so we know what is going to happen to anybody the military catches. But don't insult our intelligence by trying to distinguish between punishment and torture. It only makes you look more guilty!

Antonin Scalia (COL '57) - HOYA!

From MSNBC's Countdown last night:

BUSH: They have repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in Anwar. The department of energy estimates Anwar can allow America to produce about a million additional barrels of oil every day, which translates to about 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel every day. That would be about a 20 percent increase of crude oil production over U.S. levels and it would likely mean lower gas prices.

OLBERMANN: In fact, Mr. Bush is right here. A few years ago, the EIA, the United States Energy Information Administration, considered the impact of drilling in Anwar, and said that gasoline prices would go down, dropping one cent per gallon by the year 2025. But Anwar is not Mr. Bush‘s only prescription for soaring gas prices.

BUSH: Another reason for high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It‘s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery. Yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries.

OLBERMANN: In fact, American refineries are only at 85 percent of capacity, according to the EIA. In fact, consumption fell from 2005 while production was stable. In fact, Mr. Bush got a new refinery bill that he said would increase refining capacity and Democrats said would enrich the oil companies. In fact, Congress ignored Mr. Bush‘s request to use old military bases as refineries because oil companies don‘t want to, because the silly military didn‘t build them near pipelines.

In fact, Mr. Bush has blocked Democratic measures, such as the Price Gouging Prevention Act. In fact, in 2000, Mr. Bush said the next president should fight gas prices by making OPEC increase production, a mission Mr. Bush failed at in January and again last month. In fact, American oil executives have increased refining capacity by expanding existing refineries. When top officials at the five biggest companies testified this month about whether they want new refineries, all of them said no.

They made record profits anyway.

Keith may be as left wing as they come but thats why I like him.

VoxOrion wrote:How weird is it that none of you are talking about the whole Obama/Wright thing? The latest response from Obama is rough. This stuff, combined with Hillary, is not good for him - practically a HAMELS storm of "crap, I want people to change the subject!"

I'm with you Vox--getting ready for work this am heard his quotes first, THEN heard who they were from--couldn't believe it! Is he really this much of a lunatic or just willing to do anything at all to keep his name in the media. Obama must be praying for an alien abduction of the guy!

jerseyhoya wrote:I support this law because I think voter fraud is BAD. I find negative campaigning fascinating when both sides do it, and I love to follow the give and take. Negative campaigning is, however, different than voting under a name that is not your own because, and here's the kicker, it isn't illegal.

I don't care enough about how you all vote (unless you live in NJ-03) to spend my time here lying about what I believe to try and sway your opinions. The vast majority here are beyond saving anyhow. It's absurd anyway that it's that hard to believe that I could possibly support the actual intent of a law that was deemed Constitutional by a 6-3 margin yesterday. It's not like I'm sticking up for Stalin here or something.

I'm upfront and honest about when I'm being a cheesy partisan tool so that when I'm not you guys can see that too. Or at least that I'm not being overly partisan in my own mind. I really think this law is common sense. The $#@! IDs are $#@! free.

I'm not sure why jerseyhoya's support for this should be seen as cynical applause for a measure just because it may exclude some Democratic voters. I think his feelings about voter fraud deserve to be taken on face value.

I do see his support as reflecting one of the few actual philosophical differences between the parties-although jerseyhoya can certainly tell me if I'm full of crap. Republicans are more likely to support this measure because they believe if you want to vote/become a citizen/get a better job/own your own home/be educated etc. that's great,but you need to take the measures necessary to do so, whether it's obtaining an ID card or whatever. the role of government is to provide the opportunity for ANYONE to do it, but not necessarily to hold your hand through the process.Democrats also believe that if you want to vote/become a citizen/get a better job/own your own home/be educated etc. that's great too, but are more likely to look at the obstacles, some of which are self-imposed, which prevent EVERYONE from participating, and to then focus on eliminating these obstacles on the way to a larger goal.

Now how much these philosophies actually get into practice in day-to-day politics is debatable. But I think it is the point where people are likely to butt heads, the Republicans frustratedly asserting that anyone already CAN do this, and Dems more likely to assert, but what about THEM?

I don't think either attitude deserves to be offhandedly dismissed.