bmags

I don't really consider veganism to be a political institution.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 6, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) I wouldn't use the word "bad" cuz I don't make judgments of people's political views, just as I understand them. He's critical of capitalism as an economic system and said he'd want to try something else (though he would be able to explain that a lot better, if he's reading this) i guess i view anarchy as "bad", but to the left of anarchy would be communist and I don't think he is a communist. I think he's just a scandinavian socialist which in historical standards is pretty light on the spectrum.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 6, 2011 -> 03:43 PM) Further left than BigSqwert and you're also in anarchist territory. Y2HH has the same distrust of corporate money and special interests that the left does. I really don't think he's that bad. Do you think BigSqwert would actually propose a large nationalization of companies in the US? I think he just favors heavy regulation.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 6, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) Oh, and also, for the record here...I don't think GW is as good as far right Republicans claim he was...and I don't think he was as bad as the far left Liberals say he was... That said, my voting record makes a pretty clear statement IMO: Clinton Bush Kerry I could not vote for McCain because of his choice of VP, nor did I like what Obama was selling...which was a dream. To say I agree with republicans more than democrats is stretching reality, at best...since I've voted for less Republicans in my life than Democrats. As Lostfan has said, after meeting me, he realized I'm less of a republican than most think...but I hate you democrats most of the time, too. Wasn't lostfan's quote that you were so far right you met bigsqwert on the other side?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 6, 2011 -> 03:05 PM) I prefer either, since you apply universally valid statements only to me, but not yourself...so I say you too, have selective innocence, and since it would be impossible for you to refute such a generalized/global statement, I guess we both win. The difference is I'm not going into the Republican thread trolling calling you guys biased. I know I'm biased. I also try to back up my arguments, as do many of the posters in this thread. You guys might disagree with us, but as trying to back up our claims is a sign of respect. I expect the same.

also, selective innocence. i was listening to a podcast and that word came out. Memory. but, whichever you'd prefer.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 01:25 AM) Unfortunately, my no-sided stance is pretty well documented around here, considering there are things I agree with both sides on. My voting record (back when I still voted), also speaks for itself, as a person that's actually voted both ways in multiple presidential elections. I merely pointed out the obvious, which is standard fare when it comes to politics around here, that one group loves to point to one side, and the other points right back at them...which is what you've been doing for a long time now. We get it, anything the democrats say, is not only correct, but you agree with it. My post about Jesse Jackson was merely showing that it's not just one side that plays these games, it's both sides. According to you, rich people suppress poor people from voting to steal elections...but the other side never partakes in any such voting shenanigans! Don't think I'm going to post here and defend the republicans innocence, either...but don't dare try to play the unfair game, which is exactly what you're doing. We ALL have things both sides agree on. But you have selective innocence. Just because you may think one of the worst presidents in history did a bad job does not make you objective. The dems have s*** on clinton and have s*** on obama all the time in here. You guys act like I haven't been here since 2003 and remember you all during the Bush administration. I'm going to agree far more with a dem president than a republican president. You are going to agree far more with a Republican president than a Democratic president. I remember this much as true. Just because you disagreed with bush a handful of times doesn't mean you are king s*** of objectiveness.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) Well, that has already happened hasnt it? We pay a hefty subsidy for the Sox to stay in town every year. Otherwise they would be in St Petersburg. And asking the taxpayers to fit the bill again 20 years later? Would never happen, publicly funded stadiums is an era coming to a close.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) 3 out of every 4 voters wouldnt approve a subsidy to keep the team in town. They had a chance to give the owners a big f*** you we are keeping our team, but they didnt feel like it. Additionally Seattle has the opportunity to recreate the Sonics if they want as all of the logos and the name are protected by the city and the NBA. s*** even people in Cleveland could get it together enough to bring back their team. Frankly the onus is not on taxpayers. The league approved a purchase from owners from Oklahoma. They said the right things, but they never intended on keeping the team in Seattle. If the white sox ownership suddenly demanded a new stadium to be publicly funded, and the taxpayers didn't approve, you would put the blame on sox fans?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 1, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) The Sonics leaving had more to do with worthless fans than David Stern. come on man, that is not true.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 05:56 PM) ...and we'll get there by pretending the republicans are the only ones that cheat/steal and lie. Got it. That was easy, maybe I'll start calling you Billy Koch. Here's whats great about you. You claim to be above the fray while doing the very same acts that you act that you are above. I made an equal argument and changed the characters, and then you said "yeah well jesse jackson! Dems do it too!" next post "I hate how everyones all dems do it, republicans do it, unlike ME, i'm so rational and awesome". And not once, could you guys ever even take the time to show why, in a decade that didn't see much of any defining moments of "dead bodies stealing elections" did a bunch of proposals to fix voter fraud specifically find as their cure-all, a solution that would suppress minority voting. I'm waiting. But you won't find it because you guys know all you need to from what sounds bad in your gut. And voter fraud that is convicted by way of criminal investigation and prosecution is bad, and poor people are lazy. Meanwhile, I'm so very rational.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 05:53 PM) Well, no, it's not shocking, that's kinda the point. I'd like to see a return to sanity here (and everywhere else, in relation to politics), I'm sick and tired of seeing the, X party does this, Y party does that...it's unfair, it's illegal, blah... They're all doing it if we choose to take notice. It's just easier to pretend your own party is innocent and the other party play unfairly. Party politics is what got us where we are...it's not working, because it's never worked. and we'll get there by making sure poor people can't vote, got it.

a chipotle tortilla is almost 300 calories alone.

you've seen gotv campaigns? SHOCKING

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 04:00 PM) That's ok, Jesse Jackson will ship busloads of them to the working voting stations, free of charge, so long as they vote exactly as he tells them too. No problem here is right, problem solved. yes, jesse jackson has so much power

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) I don't think he was going for moderate... more like spineless and poll obsessed. so he's a moderate /rimshot

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 12:57 AM) Perry is a career politician and will do whatever the polls tell him. He's a GOP Bill Clinton... think about that one for a minute. I don't think he's anywhere near as moderate as Clinton. That said, Texas certainly has some nice housing regulations perhaps other states could learn from.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 03:19 AM) So in your world, fraud should only be addressed when its rampant and clear. Got it. Seriously, go back to my earlier post. If the best you can come up with is "but there isn't that much voter fraud", then its useless arguing with you, because I could just as easily say "there's not that much improper gun buying through dealers", and it is just as well founded. Its not a non-existent problem, it happens and you damn well know it. If you want to say "there are worse things we should address", then fine, say that, it would actually make sense. But to say it doesnt exist is the same thing as me saying anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Of course they exist, but no one really knows how much... should we just ignore them? No one has said that. It already does get prosecuted. But take the diecast example for instance. Imagine if there was a consistent liberal push to close down these voting machines right before an election that happen to coincide in a wealthier, and by and large, republican area. We didn't take away their right to vote, we just shut down the closes voting stations and had them have to drive 1 town over. No one's rights were taken away, they just had to put in extra effort to vote. And if there's one thing we know about rich people as opposed to poor people, they ALWAYS put in more effort. And, surprisingly, voting in that district falls from the times before it. But that's not a problem, because you may have just prevented several fraudulent votes, and people still COULD vote. No problem here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 09:56 PM) I am impressed your general feelings on voter fraud are so accommodating. What is a little fraud between elections afterall. They aren't accommodating. They are prosecuted. And as a result there is a high trust in our elections without voter id. But for some reason it maintains an issue because people say "voter fraud IS bad" without realizing the motivations behind the specific bills, to suppress minority voting. It's nothing new, it's just taken a new form.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 09:16 PM) The only problem with that is you have no idea how effective ID is because there is no reporting of people who are legitimately turned away, or otherwise don't even try to vote because they know they can't get away with it. You only hear the very few people who complain, and even in those cases they can take a provisional ballot and vote anyway, and prove that they are indeed legitimate. So the reality is that no one should be "disenfranchised" by these rules. That is entirely propaganda. And no one should be disenfranchised by citizen tests.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) So do I. Which is why I think fraud should be fought with obvious measures, such as ID. And my argument is that there's a cause and effect that is stupid. If you put in a measure that prevents more citizen voters than cases of voter fraud, which in all evidence these do exactly that, then the election is LESS legitimate, not MORE.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 08:13 PM) We do exactly this for accounting fraud, except for jobs and income. I'm not addressing your red herring thank you. And I consider the policies of how our citizens vote to be considerably more important to the health of our democracy than the regulations in place for accountants. You have a strong enough lobby, use your corporate might.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 08:08 PM) It costs zero citizens the right to vote. Zero. You are confusing "right to vote" with "vote". It will, I am sure, cost some votes from people who were unwilling or unable to fully exercise that right, or unaware of the process. Unwilling and unaware, I could care less what happens to you. Unable, if physically so, as I said, I am all in favor of having a system in place to address it. Fine. If you pass a law that correlates to a significant drop in real voters and drop of the small amounts of voter fraud cases, is it a good law. edit: i'm not confusing anything.

If you have a law that may be effective in preventing the incredibly small cases of voter fraud at the cost of hundreds of US citizens right to vote, is it a good law? This is the equivelant of bloodletting.

If you can't back up your claims with anything, then dont' tell me I'm a roadblock to discussion. I personally ahve had to look up and post actual court decisions and article backing up that these voter fraud cases have next to no success on anything other than voter registration fraud. And that voter registration fraud has not been found to contribute to actual voter count fraud. And numerous sources posting who these claims are always targeted at and who is always funding them. I've seen nothing from you other than the sentiment that "voter fraud is bad". So prove it.