Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XX
Bullwinkle, addressing the issue of electronic versus paper voting, nailed it shut. Tight.
The Democrats don�t really want a paper trail, they just want to be able to call for a recount every time they lose, no paper trail is the excuse. They�ll still call for a recount every time they lose even if there is a paper trail.
If I was a Democrat, especially if I was in the leadership of the party, I’d immediately begin exploring new and innovating ways of proving him wrong. Hmmm…any interest in doing that? Any at all?
They don’t want to represent the country, and they have no interest in uniting over dividing. They want to call the shots.
A party needs 218 seats in the House to name a new Speaker and put it’s own guys in the committee chairmanships. The Democrats want that 218. If they get 217 instead, there will be legal wrangling. Everyone knows this to be the case. If they win that 218th seat through the wrangling, the thirst will be slaked, “The People Will Have Spoken,” and they will go about the next piece of business…….angrily. Everybody knows that, too.
If you trot on down to the Democrats’ office with a nifty plan to get 300 seats, or 350, or 400…nobody there will bother to listen to you. Everybody knows that too! It’s all about taking the hill. They end up representing 99.99% of us, or 50.01% of us…it’s all the same to them. All the same. Which is really odd, because you’d think with all the legal jockeying after the 2000 elections they’d be really interested in winning a Reagan-type landslide that would be open to nothing but the most reckless challenge. I’m just speaking the obvious here, none of it would be a surprise to anyone, and nobody would spend a lot of breath or energy arguing against it, no matter what their interests.
But for some reason, you’re not allowed to say this in “public.” Not unless you follow it up, real quick, with something along the lines of “…and Republicans are exactly the same.” Well, I have doubts that they really are the same. Seems there’s a lot of pressure on the Republicans to at least pretend to be a “Big Tent” party. Whereas, whenever I see someone pressuring the Democrats to do something, they’re pressuring the Democrats to alienate more people, marginalize more people, and generally start doing a better job telling people to fuck off.
They’ve lost the last three elections in a row. 50.1-49.9, 50.1-49.9, 50.1-49.9. It’s always the same. Always just a hair away from that oh-so-crucial midpoint…close…no cigar. Every other Thanksgiving, they end up giving “If Only”‘s instead. You would think, with all the mistakes Republicans have been making, Democrats would put more emphasis on winning converts — a whole lot of them, so that any Republican-friendly shenanigans at the ballot box would have to be unworkably hugely expensive and complicated, to even become a threat.
But no. All we see is calling the other side stupid, right up until the election, and in the weeks afterward a whole lot of griping about “Gore/Kerry is too smart to have his message understood” and bizarre insinuations about malfeasance and skulduggery in the counting of the votes.
That is not the extent of the evidence backing up Bullwinkle’s claims. You should go read the article, to get the rest of it. What are you waiting for?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I would think that everyone, Democrat and Republican, would want to have a paper trail in case of problems with the polls. I’ve never really understood why there is an argument against a paper trail, really. I think of it as common sense.
I especially am concerned that someone (from either party frankly) can hack into these computers and tip the election one way or the other. I think that a paper trail is a good backup against something like that.
- S & C | 10/10/2006 @ 12:04Yeah, and I think most people agree with you. I certainly do.
But we shouldn’t be yelling about it quite as much. If the machines are broke, fix ’em. If the existing process is better than the machines, leave the machines out. And if, say, Democrats came 1,000 votes shy of winning a state, and they get a lawyer who’s so good he can “find” the 1,000 votes while bottling everything up — let’s apply that lawyer’s talents someplace more worthwhile, and move on.
Point is, Democrats are using whatever mathematical margin-for-error is present in any process we’d care to use, as a fail-safe device just in case the counts come in and they don’t like them. It’s dishonest, and it further invests our whole republic in this presumption that the “wrong” party can do NOTHING right, from managing the DoD to granting land use permits to vaccuuming the carpets in the White House to handing out signed photographs. We have this mindset going that if the “wrong” guy wins, ALL this stuff will be screwed up.
Another thing: Mathematically, it borders on the mystical to have three elections in a row where the vote is so close to 50-50 in so many states. I blame the Democrats, because I perceive the extreme leftists are putting pressure on them. If the Democrats pull in, let’s say, 60% support (as they’re pulling in right about now) someone is going to raise the issue: In what days did we water down our agenda to attract these extra nine points, between 51% and 60%? And if we sacrifice those nine useless points, how much venom can we inject back in so we can appeal to our extremist DailyKOS type of base?
- mkfreeberg | 10/10/2006 @ 21:21It distresses me greatly that I read an article recently that describes how Mexico now has more safeguards against voter fraud than the US. Where are the purple fingers here? That would cost virtiually no money to implement and goes a long way to prevent fraud.
- Duffy | 10/11/2006 @ 08:34