|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2005 > Anyone involved in Green movement?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Anyone involved in Green movement?
|
|
| Murphy 2005-12-08, 12:21 pm |
| Hello,
I just joined the group, and I wanted to pose a question to the list.
I'm writing about the Green movement, which I'm defining as a loose
global network of people concerned about the world's resources running
out, and trying to promote self-sufficiency, clean energy and
community.
Some parts of the Green movement evolved into the Green Party, in which
I have been active. My experience, though, is that U.S. Greens made a
serious mistake allowing itself to be identified with the "far left,"
when its values might have appealed to many conservatives and
evangelicals.
I noticed that the Greens have come up in a few past threads. Is there
anyone on this list who has identified as a Green, or has experience
with them, and would like to correspond?
Murphy
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-08, 1:21 pm |
| On 8 Dec 2005 07:47:47 -0800, Murphy <brianfxmurphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some parts of the Green movement evolved into the Green Party, in which
> I have been active. My experience, though, is that U.S. Greens made a
> serious mistake allowing itself to be identified with the "far left,"
> when its values might have appealed to many conservatives and
> evangelicals.
Their far-left placement has also kept people like me away - I'm a
right-leaning libertarian, and while I have many things in common with
"the greens", I can't support them due to several profound disagreements
on topics more important to me than anything else.
> I noticed that the Greens have come up in a few past threads. Is there
> anyone on this list who has identified as a Green, or has experience
> with them, and would like to correspond?
Steve Spence has something like "green trust" as a domainname, not sure
if that's Green or just green. He's around, though.
Dave Hinz
| |
| Ulysses 2005-12-08, 1:21 pm |
|
"Murphy" <brianfxmurphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134056867.329031.287460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I just joined the group, and I wanted to pose a question to the list.
> I'm writing about the Green movement, which I'm defining as a loose
> global network of people concerned about the world's resources running
> out, and trying to promote self-sufficiency, clean energy and
> community.
>
> Some parts of the Green movement evolved into the Green Party, in which
> I have been active. My experience, though, is that U.S. Greens made a
> serious mistake allowing itself to be identified with the "far left,"
> when its values might have appealed to many conservatives and
> evangelicals.
>
> I noticed that the Greens have come up in a few past threads. Is there
> anyone on this list who has identified as a Green, or has experience
> with them, and would like to correspond?
>
> Murphy
>
I'm so far right there isn't even a category for me. Everyone is too
liberal for me so I don't join anything.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-08, 1:21 pm |
| Murphy wrote:
> I just joined the group, and I wanted to pose a question to the list.
> I'm writing about the Green movement, which I'm defining as a loose
> global network of people concerned about the world's resources running
> out, and trying to promote self-sufficiency, clean energy and
> community.
>
> Some parts of the Green movement evolved into the Green Party, in which
> I have been active. My experience, though, is that U.S. Greens made a
> serious mistake allowing itself to be identified with the "far left,"
??? Huh. The US doesn't _have_ a left, let alone a far left.
> when its values might have appealed to many conservatives and
> evangelicals.
>
> I noticed that the Greens have come up in a few past threads. Is there
> anyone on this list who has identified as a Green, or has experience
> with them, and would like to correspond?
Well, I've been known to vote Green. In Canada, though, they aren't far
enough left.
I certainly hope Greens aren't really "concerned about the world's resources
running out" - the heat & pollution will kill us long before we use up all
the resources :-)
--
derek
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-08, 1:21 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:50:53 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Murphy wrote:
[color=darkred]
> ??? Huh. The US doesn't _have_ a left, let alone a far left.
Anyone who wants to take my guns away, is "far left". Anyone who
fights against requiring a photo ID to vote (no, really!) is far left.
Anyone who wants to give criminals another chance, while assuming that
honest people are automatically suspect, is far left.
There's too much "far left" in the US. Despite whatever your press
shows you.
| |
|
| "Ulysses"> wrote
> I'm so far right there isn't even a category for me. Everyone is too
> liberal for me so I don't join anything.
I wanna party with this dood! LOL
Except I can barely tolerate anybody......
Last time I joined something it took me 4 years to get back out.
| |
| tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com 2005-12-08, 3:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:50:53 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> Anyone who wants to take my guns away, is "far left". Anyone who
> fights against requiring a photo ID to vote (no, really!) is far left.
> Anyone who wants to give criminals another chance, while assuming that
> honest people are automatically suspect, is far left.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like el-bushies policies for illegal aliens.....
.. oh I forgot... .. PC mode... undocumented immigrant..
> There's too much "far left" in the US. Despite whatever your press
> shows you.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-08, 3:21 pm |
| On 8 Dec 2005 10:43:21 -0800, tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sounds like el-bushies policies for illegal aliens.....
How specifically can someone be an illegal alien, _and_ honest,
simultaneously?
| |
|
|
"Murphy" <brianfxmurphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134056867.329031.287460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I just joined the group, and I wanted to pose a question to the list.
> I'm writing about the Green movement, which I'm defining as a loose
> global network of people concerned about the world's resources running
> out, and trying to promote self-sufficiency, clean energy and
> community.
I'm all for that 100%, but I can't get behind the other crap they are trying
to push.
If chemicals are bad for the environment, why do so many in the Green Party
seem to favor putting them in their brains?
| |
| Murphy 2005-12-08, 6:21 pm |
| "Anyone who wants to take my guns away, is "far left". Anyone who
fights against requiring a photo ID to vote (no, really!) is far left.
Anyone who wants to give criminals another chance, while assuming that
honest people are automatically suspect, is far left."
Murphy responds:
An interesting point, Dave. I know Greens on both sides of the gun
control issue. I don't know of any Greens who have fought against
requiring photo ID to vote. As for giving "criminals another chance," I
think our justice system does and should do that, but only after they
have paid their debt to society. I don't know of any Greens who think
"honest people are automatically suspect."
I used the term "left" with reservations, since I dislike dividing
people on a left-right spectrum. People have used the word to refer to
everyone from Stalin and Pol Pot to Bill Clinton to Noam Chomsky to
Jerry Springer to Andrew Sullivan, and there is nothing those people
have in common. If 'the left" is used to refer to politically active
socialists, there isn't much of a left in America, and I'm glad. If
"the left" means anyone who thinks more must be done to protect the
environment, polls show that includes 95 percent of Americans. This is
why I wish the Greens had done more to reach out across political
divides.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-08, 6:21 pm |
| On 8 Dec 2005 13:32:21 -0800, Murphy <brianfxmurphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anyone who wants to take my guns away, is "far left". Anyone who
> fights against requiring a photo ID to vote (no, really!) is far left.
> Anyone who wants to give criminals another chance, while assuming that
> honest people are automatically suspect, is far left."
>
> Murphy responds:
> An interesting point, Dave. I know Greens on both sides of the gun
> control issue. I don't know of any Greens who have fought against
> requiring photo ID to vote.
Ah, I was responding to the topic-drift induced by one of our Canadian
posters telling me that there is no far-left in the US. I wasn't
attributing those beliefs to the Greens specifically, I was using those
to show that there is, in fact, an extreme left wing here.
| |
|
| "JoeSP"> wrote
> If chemicals are bad for the environment, why do so many in the Green
> Party seem to favor putting them in their brains?
After all its only a weed,
that turns into a flower,
in your mind......
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-08, 11:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:50:53 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Anyone who wants to take my guns away, is "far left".
Well you already know I want to take your guns away...
> Anyone who
> fights against requiring a photo ID to vote (no, really!) is far left.
Yes, really. I'm pretty much against that too.
> Anyone who wants to give criminals another chance, while assuming that
> honest people are automatically suspect, is far left.
See, that's where you lose me. Requiring photo ID for everything IS an
assumption that honest people are automatically suspect. I'm not for
giving criminals extra chances, though I draw the line at executing them.
>
> There's too much "far left" in the US. Despite whatever your press
> shows you.
No, really. Your "far left" is still well to the right of our right.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-08, 11:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2005 13:32:21 -0800, Murphy <brianfxmurphy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah, I was responding to the topic-drift
Uh, uh. That wasn't topic drift. He said the Greens were too far left for
American voters (probably true) and I simply pointed out that, by Canadian
standards, you don't have one.
> induced by one of our Canadian
> posters telling me that there is no far-left in the US. I wasn't
> attributing those beliefs to the Greens specifically, I was using those
> to show that there is, in fact, an extreme left wing here.
No, you _stated_ that there's an extreme left wing. It's just left of where
most Americans are - it's still a long way from "extreme".
--
derek
| |
| Cosmopolite 2005-12-09, 12:21 am |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Well you already know I want to take your guns away...
>
>
>
>
> Yes, really. I'm pretty much against that too.
>
>
>
>
> See, that's where you lose me. Requiring photo ID for everything IS an
> assumption that honest people are automatically suspect. I'm not for
> giving criminals extra chances, though I draw the line at executing them.
>
>
>
> No, really. Your "far left" is still well to the right of our right.
They don't have red tories down there. 
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:4v5mf.1790$Dd2.588@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "JoeSP"> wrote
>
> After all its only a weed,
> that turns into a flower,
> in your mind......
>
OK, but the future belongs to those who can tell the difference between
reality and chemical bliss. Say bye-bye to your bloodline.
| |
| Tony Wesley 2005-12-09, 10:21 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:4v5mf.1790$Dd2.588@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> OK, but the future belongs to those who can tell the difference between
> reality and chemical bliss. Say bye-bye to your bloodline.
I'll drink to that!
| |
|
| In article <lE_lf.1198$3Z.915@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> I wanna party with this dood! LOL
> Except I can barely tolerate anybody......
> Last time I joined something it took me 4 years to get back out.
You and Tookie XXXXXXXX, right?
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-09, 2:21 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:29:59 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
> Well you already know I want to take your guns away...
Why? I'm not a danger to anyone but a criminal or a tyrant. And,
they're already armed. Why should I be made powerless?
>
> Yes, really. I'm pretty much against that too.
You'd rather have voter fraud than have someone who can prove who they
are and where they live? Why exactly should someone else get to vote as
many times as they want, just by going to different polling places and
claiming to live in that district? Dishonest peoples' opinion matters
more to you, Derek?
[color=darkred]
> See, that's where you lose me. Requiring photo ID for everything IS an
> assumption that honest people are automatically suspect. I'm not for
> giving criminals extra chances, though I draw the line at executing them.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you, for instance, who wants to
disarm me. I haven't done a thing wrong to warrant such a punishment.
Asking me to prove I live in the place I want to vote is hardly
punishment.
>
> No, really. Your "far left" is still well to the right of our right.
I'm sorry to hear that.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-09, 2:21 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:32:55 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Uh, uh. That wasn't topic drift. He said the Greens were too far left for
> American voters (probably true) and I simply pointed out that, by Canadian
> standards, you don't have one.
No, you misunderstand topic drift, but that's not central to the point
anyway.
[color=darkred]
> No, you _stated_ that there's an extreme left wing.
There is.
> It's just left of where
> most Americans are - it's still a long way from "extreme".
In your opinion based on your perspective.
| |
| Ulysses 2005-12-09, 4:21 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:lE_lf.1198$3Z.915@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Ulysses"> wrote
>
> I wanna party with this dood! LOL
> Except I can barely tolerate anybody......
Me either! Or they can't tolerate me. Works out about the same anyway.
> Last time I joined something it took me 4 years to get back out.
>
>
| |
| Ulysses 2005-12-09, 4:21 pm |
|
"Murphy" <brianfxmurphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134077540.993738.169910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Anyone who wants to take my guns away, is "far left". Anyone who
> fights against requiring a photo ID to vote (no, really!) is far left.
> Anyone who wants to give criminals another chance, while assuming that
> honest people are automatically suspect, is far left."
>
> Murphy responds:
> An interesting point, Dave. I know Greens on both sides of the gun
> control issue. I don't know of any Greens who have fought against
> requiring photo ID to vote. As for giving "criminals another chance," I
> think our justice system does and should do that, but only after they
> have paid their debt to society. I don't know of any Greens who think
> "honest people are automatically suspect."
>
> I used the term "left" with reservations, since I dislike dividing
> people on a left-right spectrum. People have used the word to refer to
> everyone from Stalin and Pol Pot to Bill Clinton to Noam Chomsky to
> Jerry Springer to Andrew Sullivan, and there is nothing those people
> have in common. If 'the left" is used to refer to politically active
> socialists, there isn't much of a left in America, and I'm glad.
I guess you've never been to California. It is a communist state.
If
> "the left" means anyone who thinks more must be done to protect the
> environment,
From my point of view the REAL environmentalists are mainly conservative, at
least where I live. Do something around here that's bad for the oak trees
or wild animals or the creek and you will have a bunch of crazy, gun-toting
conservatives dumping a whole lot of shit on you. OTOH the liberals tell me
I'm some kind of terrorist because I drive a 4X4 SUV type vehicle and I'm
using more than my share of gasoline or some such crap and they drive a
minivan that only gets a couple more MPG and preach about saving vital
resources and then go out on weekends driving around in circles all day on
their motorcycles, ATVs, jet skiis, and snowmobiles.
polls show that includes 95 percent of Americans. This is
> why I wish the Greens had done more to reach out across political
> divides.
>
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-09, 4:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:29:59 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Why? I'm not a danger to anyone but a criminal or a tyrant. And,
> they're already armed. Why should I be made powerless?
It's not an argument I'm going to have with you again...
>
>
> You'd rather have voter fraud than have someone who can prove who they
> are and where they live?
No, I would rather have a society (like the one in which I live) where
there's a level of trust. I get on the voters list by proving my identity,
then every time we vote, they send me a card and I bring the card to the
polls. Somebody else could get my card, in which case when I went and
tried to prove I was who I was, there'd be a need to provide ID, but I
won't live in a society where ID is required first.
--
derek
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-09, 4:21 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:25:39 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
> It's not an argument I'm going to have with you again...
And yet you engaged. (shrug) Whatever, Derek. You want to talk about it
but you don't want to talk about it. You're content to be free and safe
as long as the criminals and tyrants allow you to, I prefer to take a
more preventative approach.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> No, I would rather have a society (like the one in which I live) where
> there's a level of trust.
I'll trust you, until you show you don't deserve it.
> I get on the voters list by proving my identity,
> then every time we vote, they send me a card and I bring the card to the
> polls. Somebody else could get my card, in which case when I went and
> tried to prove I was who I was, there'd be a need to provide ID, but I
> won't live in a society where ID is required first.
In other words, there is a mechanism for one person, one vote. That
doesn't exist here, Derek. That's my point. Joe Random Whomever can
wander from precinct to precinct claiming to live there, register
day-of-voting, and vote. Doesn't need photo ID, just a piece of mail
with the name they're claiming to be in the district they're claiming to
be from. What's to stop someone from going to a dozen places to vote?
Nothing. And it's happening every election.
Additionally, you're not supposed to vote here if you're a felon.
Somehow I bet you disagree with that too, but that's not the point. The
point is, if you let someone vote without checking out that they're who
they say they are, there is no integrity to the process. Hell, you need
photo ID to buy Sudafed now, but anyone can claim to be anyone and vote
as many times as they have spare time to do.
In your world, you trust criminals, tyrants, and fraudulent voters. In
my world, I don't.
| |
|
| "JoeSP"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote
>
> OK, but the future belongs to those who can tell the difference between
> reality and chemical bliss.
Everything has chemicals.
> Say bye-bye to your bloodline.
Well, I haven't touched the stuff for a long, long time and my *bloodline*
is now 26 years old.
How the hell did I get so old so fast?????
| |
|
| "You"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote:
>
> You and Tookie XXXXXXXX, right?
Well, at times the Army did seem like prison......
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz"> wrote
> You'd rather have voter fraud than have someone who can prove who they
> are and where they live?
Interesting take.
We both walk into the building, you choose 'A' to steal from me and I choose
'B' to steal from you.
But you're worried about fraud?
| |
|
| "Derek Broughton"> wrote
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> It's not an argument I'm going to have with you again...
There really is no argument, Derek.
You don't get to disarm Dave anymore than he gets to gang rape you.
This is elementary stuff that's usually taught in, well, elementary school.
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz"> wrote
>
> There is.
Nope.
There's Freedom, and there's Socialism.
There is no in between.
Both sides of the aisle steal your money and your freedom, while the sheeple
argue semantics.
Why in the world would a sane person choose another to rule him?
Oh, thats right, that *lesser of 2 evils* thing.......
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-09, 6:21 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:18:50 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
[color=darkred]
> Interesting take.
How so? You can choose to either have people show ID to vote, or you
can choose to tolerate people not being who they claim to be when they
do vote. Pretty simple, really.
> We both walk into the building, you choose 'A' to steal from me and I choose
> 'B' to steal from you.
How is asking you to prove you are who you claim to be in order to vote
me stealing from you, Don? Seriously. I don't get it.
> But you're worried about fraud?
Yes. Aren't elections supposed to be, you know, fair? How can they be
fair when people can vote as many times as they want? How is showing
photo ID to register and vote an infringement of any right at all?
Maybe you don't understand the situation. In Wisconsin, you can wander
in to the polling place, day of election, claim to live there and
"prove" it by showing a _piece of mail addressed to anyone in the
precinct_, vote, and go on and do that in as many places as you can get
a piece of mail for. Same day, no checks to see where you're
registered, no way of knowing you really are who you claim to be.
A photo ID, while hardly foolproof, is certainly harder to come by
fraudulently than a piece of mail.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-09, 6:21 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:25:00 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
>
> Nope.
Oh great, we're in the Monty Python "argument clinic" skit.
> There's Freedom, and there's Socialism.
> There is no in between.
That tells me all I need to know about you.
> Both sides of the aisle steal your money and your freedom, while the sheeple
> argue semantics.
> Why in the world would a sane person choose another to rule him?
> Oh, thats right, that *lesser of 2 evils* thing.......
Let's see. The left wants to disarm people so they're susceptible to
tyrants from either side. Does that make the distinction clearer?
| |
| John H 2005-12-09, 9:21 pm |
| During our last election campaign the Green Party of Aotearoa (New Zealand)
was described as being like a "water melon: green on the outside, red on the
inside". They were formed as a coalition(?) between the Values Party and
Alliance (left wing) Keith Locke the foreign affairs spokesman comes from a
communist parents and is famous for having expressed support for Pol Pot.
Nandor 'Chancez' who has just returned to parliment is a rasta and is
pushing for marijuana reform.
John
"Murphy" <brianfxmurphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134056867.329031.287460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I just joined the group, and I wanted to pose a question to the list.
> I'm writing about the Green movement, which I'm defining as a loose
> global network of people concerned about the world's resources running
> out, and trying to promote self-sufficiency, clean energy and
> community.
>
> Some parts of the Green movement evolved into the Green Party, in which
> I have been active. My experience, though, is that U.S. Greens made a
> serious mistake allowing itself to be identified with the "far left,"
> when its values might have appealed to many conservatives and
> evangelicals.
>
> I noticed that the Greens have come up in a few past threads. Is there
> anyone on this list who has identified as a Green, or has experience
> with them, and would like to correspond?
>
> Murphy
>
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz"> wrote
> Yes. Aren't elections supposed to be, you know, fair?
No.
Elections are where you choose someone to steal from me and I choose someone
to steal from you.
Thats what you like, don't you?
| |
|
|
"Dave Hinz"> wrote
> Let's see. The left wants to disarm people so they're susceptible to
> tyrants from either side. Does that make the distinction clearer?
Are you aware of what Ahnold just approved in Calif recently?
Pander your socialist shit elsewhere Dave.
| |
|
| "John H"> wrote
> Nandor 'Chancez' who has just returned to parliment is a rasta and is
> pushing for marijuana reform.
You say that like its a bad thing.
| |
| John H 2005-12-10, 5:21 am |
| It's sticking your neck out for a political party. Having said that a
lobbyist from the Beer Wine and Spirits Assn had been given a parlimentary
pass to lobby MP's until a member of a minor party had it revoked.
John
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:u9umf.1847$nm.62@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "John H"> wrote
>
> You say that like its a bad thing.
>
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-10, 11:21 am |
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:56:34 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
>
> No.
> Elections are where you choose someone to steal from me and I choose someone
> to steal from you.
> Thats what you like, don't you?
No, Don, don't presume to speak for me, you're not qualified to state my
position. Let me make this simple. I vote once, and I don't want you
voting twice or more. Clearer now?
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-10, 11:21 am |
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:58:41 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
[color=darkred]
> Are you aware of what Ahnold just approved in Calif recently?
> Pander your socialist shit elsewhere Dave.
Ahnold is a republican in name only, just like McCain. And I don't
believe I've ever been called a socialist before, and am not sure how
you've confused a right-leaning Libertarian with a socialist. My
only logical conclusion is that you're not paying attention.
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz"> wrote
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:56:34 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
>
> No, Don, don't presume to speak for me, you're not qualified to state my
> position.
I don't have to speak for you Dave, you already have.
You're an advocate of theft.
Let me make this simple. I vote once, and I don't want you
> voting twice or more. Clearer now?
It was already clear.
I won't vote for someone to steal from you.
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz"> wrote
> Don> wrote:
>
>
> Ahnold is a republican in name only, just like McCain. And I don't
> believe I've ever been called a socialist before, and am not sure how
> you've confused a right-leaning Libertarian with a socialist. My
> only logical conclusion is that you're not paying attention.
You advocate theft Dave.
There's nothing Libetarian about that at all.
| |
|
|
"John H" <89s@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:439a925e@clear.net.nz...[color=darkred]
> It's sticking your neck out for a political party. Having said that a
> lobbyist from the Beer Wine and Spirits Assn had been given a parlimentary
> pass to lobby MP's until a member of a minor party had it revoked.
> John
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:u9umf.1847$nm.62@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Two legalized drugs (alcohol and tobacco) already accounts for countless
damage to our health, our society and our economy. Why you would want to
add more to the list doesn't make sense.
| |
| Tony Wesley 2005-12-10, 3:21 pm |
|
JoeSP wrote:
> Two legalized drugs (alcohol and tobacco) already accounts for countless
> damage to our health, our society and our economy. Why you would want to
> add more to the list doesn't make sense.
Well, if you legalized some illegal drugs, you'd be adding to the list
of woes from legalized drugs. But you'd subtracting from the list of
woes from illegal drugs. Our experience with alcohol prohibition
should be sufficient to show there'd a fewer total evils with legalized
drugs.
Why you want to increase the total damage to society doesn't make
sense, in my opinion.
| |
|
|
"Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134240334.771720.32130@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> JoeSP wrote:
>
> Well, if you legalized some illegal drugs, you'd be adding to the list
> of woes from legalized drugs. But you'd subtracting from the list of
> woes from illegal drugs. Our experience with alcohol prohibition
> should be sufficient to show there'd a fewer total evils with legalized
> drugs.
>
> Why you want to increase the total damage to society doesn't make
> sense, in my opinion.
>
OK then. legalize them all, cancel the police force, save some money, and
let god sort 'em out.
I'll be on the other side, with the people who can tell the difference
between reality and chemical bliss.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-10, 4:21 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:17:04 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
[color=darkred]
> I don't have to speak for you Dave, you already have.
> You're an advocate of theft.
Because I want people to show ID to prove they live where they want to
vote? How specifically is that theft, Don? You evaded my question last
time.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-10, 4:21 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:19:04 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
[color=darkred]
> You advocate theft Dave.
How, specifically, Don?
> There's nothing Libetarian about that at all.
Ah, you're a troll. How silly of me to not see that. So, come up with
something interesting, if you can? Do you have a point or are you just
throwing random things out to see what you can get a response from?
| |
| Tony Wesley 2005-12-10, 5:21 pm |
| JoeSP wrote:
[color=darkred]
> OK then. legalize them all, cancel the police force, save some money, and
> let god sort 'em out.
You wouldn't be able to cancel the police force, but I'd rather they
spend their enforcement activities on violent crime. I don't know what
the currect situation is, but I recall reading where the average time
spent in the federal system was greater for marijuana posession than it
was for violent rape.
> I'll be on the other side, with the people who can tell the difference
> between reality and chemical bliss.
I'm going for chemical bliss. I had a couple pints of Bass Ale last
night, delightful!
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-10, 5:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:58:41 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Ahnold is a republican in name only, just like McCain. And I don't
> believe I've ever been called a socialist before, and am not sure how
> you've confused a right-leaning Libertarian with a socialist. My
> only logical conclusion is that you're not paying attention.
>
>
Arnold's wife is a Kennedy. I'm sure Arnold does what he's told .....
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
"Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134249230.753921.236030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> JoeSP wrote:
>
>
> You wouldn't be able to cancel the police force, but I'd rather they
> spend their enforcement activities on violent crime. I don't know what
> the currect situation is, but I recall reading where the average time
> spent in the federal system was greater for marijuana posession than it
> was for violent rape.
>
>
> I'm going for chemical bliss. I had a couple pints of Bass Ale last
> night, delightful!
>
I guess human evolution is resuming again.
| |
| SolarFlare 2005-12-10, 7:21 pm |
| So Arnie is the only Kennedy left in politics
now?...LOL
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:439b4489_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Dave Hinz wrote:
<one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
they're susceptible to[color=darkred]
distinction clearer?[color=darkred]
recently?[color=darkred]
McCain. And I don't[color=darkred]
and am not sure how[color=darkred]
socialist. My[color=darkred]
attention.[color=darkred]
>
> Arnold's wife is a Kennedy. I'm sure Arnold does what
he's told .....
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| George Orwell 2005-12-10, 7:21 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:45:34 -0800, Tony Wesley wrote:
>
> JoeSP wrote:
>
> Well, if you legalized some illegal drugs, you'd be adding to the list of
> woes from legalized drugs. But you'd subtracting from the list of woes
> from illegal drugs. Our experience with alcohol prohibition should be
> sufficient to show there'd a fewer total evils with legalized drugs.
>
> Why you want to increase the total damage to society doesn't make sense,
> in my opinion.
I agree with this, and would like to see drugs that are currently illegal
made available cheaply.
The only requirement would be that the user would have to register as a
drug taker, and pay the cost in increased insurance premiums, possible
revocation of his driving licence, etc.
The idea would be to give him maximum drug-taking freedom while minimizing
the cost of his habit to society.
On balance, I agree that it would be a benefit to society if drug users
were given complete freedom to pursue their habit, especially if their
drugs removed them from the world before they had a chance to reproduce.
| |
| Tony Wesley 2005-12-11, 3:21 am |
|
JoeSP wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I guess human evolution is resuming again.
It never stopped, Joe.
This reminds me, I have to load up the coffeemaker. I'm looking
forward to a chemically enhanced morning. I recently got one of those
units that grinds the bean right before brewing. A good cup of coffee
can be close to bliss!
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-11, 10:21 am |
| On 10 Dec 2005 22:28:37 -0800, Tony Wesley <tonywesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This reminds me, I have to load up the coffeemaker. I'm looking
> forward to a chemically enhanced morning. I recently got one of those
> units that grinds the bean right before brewing. A good cup of coffee
> can be close to bliss!
Capresso, or from someone else? I've got a Capresso machine I bought
maybe 8 years ago. Never have I had a coffee machine last that long,
and the coffee from it is fantastic.
| |
| Tony Wesley 2005-12-11, 12:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2005 22:28:37 -0800, Tony Wesley <tonywesley@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Capresso, or from someone else?
This is a Cuisinart. A discontinued model, I think, so I got it for
$45.
> I've got a Capresso machine I bought
> maybe 8 years ago. Never have I had a coffee machine last that long,
> and the coffee from it is fantastic.
If mine lasts half that long, I'll be happy with it.
| |
|
|
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:7d1a542a67ac6c228691d8a47312ffb1@mixmaster.it...
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:45:34 -0800, Tony Wesley wrote:
>
>
> I agree with this, and would like to see drugs that are currently illegal
> made available cheaply.
>
> The only requirement would be that the user would have to register as a
> drug taker, and pay the cost in increased insurance premiums, possible
> revocation of his driving licence, etc.
>
> The idea would be to give him maximum drug-taking freedom while minimizing
> the cost of his habit to society.
>
> On balance, I agree that it would be a benefit to society if drug users
> were given complete freedom to pursue their habit, especially if their
> drugs removed them from the world before they had a chance to reproduce.
How would they earn a living with such a habit? Who would hire them? If
they can't afford to pay for their habit and the higher healthcare premiums,
where would you put them, in debtor's prison? A penal colony?
Bad as the war on drugs is going, are you sure capitulation is a better
idea?
| |
| The Doctor 2005-12-11, 1:21 pm |
| In article <402ql2F187mdcU1@individual.net>,
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On 10 Dec 2005 22:28:37 -0800, Tony Wesley <tonywesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Capresso, or from someone else? I've got a Capresso machine I bought
>maybe 8 years ago. Never have I had a coffee machine last that long,
>and the coffee from it is fantastic.
>
Maybe, they are pro-Open Source.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Canada : Consider carefully whom to vote for on 23 Jan 2006, I choose Liberal!
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-11, 10:21 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "Derek Broughton"> wrote
>
> There really is no argument, Derek.
> You don't get to disarm Dave anymore than he gets to gang rape you.
> This is elementary stuff that's usually taught in, well, elementary
> school.
I have no intention of arguing with him. As I said - he knows my position.
The elementary stuff that's taught in our elementary school - quite
successfully - is that you don't settle arguments with guns.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-11, 10:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:25:39 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> And yet you engaged. (shrug) Whatever, Derek. You want to talk about it
> but you don't want to talk about it.
No. I said that you already knew my position - we _have_ argued about it
and nobody's position is going to be changed by doing it again.
> In other words, there is a mechanism for one person, one vote. That
> doesn't exist here, Derek. That's my point. Joe Random Whomever can
> wander from precinct to precinct claiming to live there, register
> day-of-voting, and vote. Doesn't need photo ID, just a piece of mail
> with the name they're claiming to be in the district they're claiming to
> be from.
If that's your objection, I have no problem with it. I just resent being
required to provide photo ID at every stop. _IF_ I register on the day of
voting (it depends which election we're having whether that's possible) I
will need to present photo ID.
> Additionally, you're not supposed to vote here if you're a felon.
> Somehow I bet you disagree with that too, but that's not the point.
I don't need to disagree with it. Our Supreme Court ruled that
incarceration doesn't remove your right to vote unless parliament passes
such a law. There are only two citizens in all of Canada who can't vote -
the Chief Electoral officer and his/her deputy.
--
derek
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-12, 12:21 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:37:12 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Don wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I have no intention of arguing with him. As I said - he knows my position.
> The elementary stuff that's taught in our elementary school - quite
> successfully - is that you don't settle arguments with guns.
That's great, Derek, until the _bad guy_ already _has_ a gun. What do
you want me to use then, Derek, my charm?
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-12, 12:21 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:35:15 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> No. I said that you already knew my position - we _have_ argued about it
> and nobody's position is going to be changed by doing it again.
Why even talk about it, Derek, if you didn't want to talk about it?
You're not obliged to answer every post.
[color=darkred]
> If that's your objection, I have no problem with it.
Imagine that.
> I just resent being
> required to provide photo ID at every stop.
Who in the world ever suggested such a thing (aside from you)?
> _IF_ I register on the day of
> voting (it depends which election we're having whether that's possible) I
> will need to present photo ID.
And here, you don't. That's the problem. That's my point. Don,
somehow, claims that I'm advocating theft (!?!?!) by suggesting that
(gasp!) someone prove they live where they want to vote.
[color=darkred]
> I don't need to disagree with it. Our Supreme Court ruled that
> incarceration doesn't remove your right to vote unless parliament passes
> such a law. There are only two citizens in all of Canada who can't vote -
> the Chief Electoral officer and his/her deputy.
That's nice. You choose to trust criminals with your safety and to
vote, I do not.
| |
|
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:17:04 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Because I want people to show ID to prove they live where they want to
> vote? How specifically is that theft, Don? You evaded my question last
> time.
forget it... your making a rational point to totally irrational people -
kind of a deer in the headlights thing. Most likely these are King county
Democrats (up here in Seattle) who were very successful in stealing the
governors election. Requiring postive ID and enforcing exisitng election
laws would have produced a dramaticly different result in that election.
It would have "WOW!!!" been a FAIR ELECTION!
Eric
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003545.html
or read below the text only version (the soundpolitics link has clickable
links on each date below for more info)
Nov. 2: Election Day. Gregoire leads by 7,000, less than 0.6% votes -- with
about 88% counted. Many combat troops ballots were not counted: Washington
was the last state to mail military ballots.
Nov. 3: Hundreds of "provisional ballots" cast in Seattle precincts given
out improperly to voters without valid ID. The vote tally vacillates
wildly.
Nov. 6: Gregoire's lead narrows to less than 4,000 votes.
Nov. 8: SoundPolitics.com calls the race for Rossi, after a day of wild
fluctuations.
Nov. 9: Rossi closes gap, pulls ahead by 2,123 votes.
Nov. 10: Rossi ended the day up by 3,492.
Nov. 12: A crying Paul Berendt and the Dems sue King County to violate
privacy of voters whose provisional ballots might be disqualified. Ignoring
ethics and GOP protests, Democrats turn in more than 400 ?signed?
affidavits. Vote tally spreadsheet.
Nov. 14: The WSRP fights back.
Nov. 15: The vote count gets even screwier. Dean Logan says ?voter-signed
documents? delivered by a political party equal to in-person or mailing.
Nov. 16: 10,000 Magical Mystery Ballots appear. ?Distributed vote fraud?
discussed. Rossi up by 19.
Nov. 17: Rossi wins by 261 votes. State law triggers recount.
Nov. 19: Before machine recount begins, ?a recount recount is likely,?
Berendt says, if not the whole state, at least individual counties that
they think merit a closer look.
Nov. 20: The risks of third-party affidavit gathering are outlined.
Nov. 21: GOP files federal suit against King County and the Secretary of
State: election workers were ?enhancing? ballots themselves. Judge denies
request for a temporary restraining order based on King County?s assurance
that 1) ballots are not being irreparably altered, and 2) ?enhanced?
ballots are segregated and available for later review. Vance calls the
situation in King County ?a mess:? Ballots clearly marked for Dino Rossi
are not being counted, and are not being stored securely.
Nov. 22: Recount results in Rossi leading by 42 votes.
Nov. 23: King County vote counters surgically enhance 710 previously
rejected ballots. Snohomish County discovers 224 brand new magical mystery
ballots. The Democrats call it a "tie."
Nov. 24: Recount finishes with Rossi ahead by 42. Gregoire says: "We want to
have confidence that the person who is sworn in in January is the person
who was elected.?
Nov. 25: "I think the machine count is going to be more accurate than a
manual count," said Dean Logan, the elections director. "You introduce
another human interface into the process. There's a margin there for errors
to be made." Berendt adds, wiping away tears: "This is a Karl Rove-driven
operation in this state [that went for Kerry]. We are not going to let the?
Republicans steal this election from Chris Gregoire."
Nov. 26: Amid calls for a recount, 336 mystery ballots appear. The WSJ takes
notice.
Nov. 30: The secretary of state certifies the result of the machine recount,
making Rossi the winner by 42 votes. Gov. Dan Evans explains why a hand
recount results in more errors. Dems hold Candlelight Vigil. When asked
?Who died?? they respond, ?Democracy.?
Dec. 1: Democratic National Committee (Gregoire) sends out ?Action Alert?
with poor math: ?Only 42 votes separate my Republican opponent and me.
That's a difference of 0.0014 percent. The error for voting machines is
somewhere between 1 and 2 percent, or 1,000 times as great as the vote
difference.? The actual error rate is closer to 1 in a million.
Dec. 3: Democrats seek a hand recount of the 2.9 million ballots cast in the
governor's race with financial assistance from John Kerry and the
Muckleshoot Casino.
Dec 5: Snohomish and Yakima Counties hand count electronic votes. The vote
might be decided ?by lot.?
Dec. 7: The WEA, purportedly a union, sends out an urgent memo asking its
members to "Please sign up to serve as a Democratic Party observer.? During
a 1996 recount, Attorney General Gregoire advised that state law did not
provide for the changes that the Washington Democrats now demand.
Dec. 8: Counties begin recounting ballots by hand. Paul Berendt contends
that the 15,000 illegal, spoiled or otherwise disqualified ballots are
associated with 15,000 imaginary legal voters who cast valid votes for his
candidate.
Dec. 9: Gregoire claims she didn't know about the Democrats' motion to
the Supreme Court to count all of the previously rejected ballots, although
her web home page advocates the lawsuit.
Dec. 13: King County discovers 561 new ballots. "I've said all along, 42
votes out of 2.9 million is literally a tie," Gregoire says.
Dec. 14: King County finds more votes. The state Supreme Court unanimously
rejects the Democratic Party's petition to force counties to reconsider
about 3,000 invalidated ballots -- including the 700-plus from King County
-- in the hand recount.
Dec. 15: 22 more magical mystery ballots are discovered bringing the total
to 595. 24 votes vanish from Skagit. An audit of the DSHS shows that
thousands of people who are dead or lack Social Security numbers are
getting millions of dollars in benefits.
Dec. 16: King County canvassing board votes to start to verify the 573
magical mystery ballots. Snohomish County reduces Rossi's lead by 44 votes.
Dean Logan explains that 100 voters were informed their signatures were not
in the database? However, there are no consequences for a voter who fails
to update signature. Even voters who fail to update signature, are sent a
ballot, without being told their ballot would not be accepted.
Dec. 17: GOP seeks a temporary restraining order blocking King County from
counting the newly discovered ballots. With every county reporting but
King, Rossi maintains 49-vote lead in the hand recount.
Dec. 18: King County finds 150 more magical mystery ballots. King County's
561 573 735 mystery ballots: ?the county cannot locate voter registration
cards for 2/3 of them, most of these voters were contacted months ago,
asked to validate their signatures but failed to do so? the county is
attempting to ?validate? the ballots using driver license records, property
tax records, signatures from ballot initiative petitions and other
inappropriate means.
Dec 19: A chronology of voting problems for the last 6 years.
Dec. 21: Berendt says Gregoire is winning statewide by eight votes --
without counting the newly discovered ballots from King County. County
officials do not confirm his report. ?King County election workers were
told as early as May that if an absentee ballot came in without a matching
signature on file they were required to make a concerted effort to verify
that the vote was valid. King County election workers routinely violated
state law by counting such ballots without making any attempt to verify the
signatures."
Dec. 22: King County's unofficial results give Gregoire 10-vote lead. The
Supreme Court rules that King County may reconsider the 700-plus mistakenly
rejected ballots. Meanwhile, Precinct 1823 has 763 registered "active"
voters: 527 of them list as their residence address 500 4th Ave -- the King
County Administration Building, including a judge who works, but doesn?t
live, there and voters who reside overseas, in violation of state law.
Paul Berendt, speaking of Democratic candidate Christine Gregoire, says
?God has placed her" in the governor's office.
Dec. 23: Gregoire ?wins? the recount by a margin of 129 votes, after King
County counts the newly discovered ballots and certifies its final results.
?Keep the faith," Gregoire tells supporters. "The election process is
working exactly as it should." King County's canvassing board certifies
the final results after reviewing the newly discovered ballots.
Dec. 24: Almost all tally changes favored Gregoire in the recount.
Christmas: Gregoire says: ?I think we have been a model to the rest of the
nation and the world at large about how an election system, as close as
this one is, can be done with the highest of quality... I am proud of it
and I think it's an inspiration."
Dec. 26: Some voters are genderless.
Dec. 27: Hundreds of voters are found to have registered at storage
facilities or mail stops, not at residences as required by law. Secretary
of State?s office confirms it is trivially easy for anybody to register and
vote fraudulently: there are very few safeguards to prevent voting abuses
and false registration.
Dec. 28: Public disclosure requests and distributed vote fraud.
Dec. 29: Rossi calls for a new election, saying problems with the recount
cast a cloud of doubt over legitimacy of governor. This is confirmed by
thousands of obvious data errors: voters are recorded as having registered
in 1904; 258 who are recorded as having voted in future elections. Several
deceased people have been found in the voter rolls: one passed away as long
ago as 1998. And finally, King County numbers don?t add up: more votes than
voters. Meanwhile, the media is nowhere to be found.
Dec. 30: Secretary of State Sam Reed certifies the election, declaring
Gregoire governor-elect, despite ?total mess.? Private citizen Dan Stevens
files notice of contested election. In Snohomish, more problems as their
numbers also don?t add up, and10 people registered on January 1, 1900, 16
people registered in 1919, and 5 other people registered on various dates
prior to 1910. King County Elections says even though Stefan found people
registered at illegal addresses, they have no statutory authority to cancel
their registrations.
Dec 31: 266 ballots seem to disappear, while 325 magically materialize. A
petition demanding a revote is begun. The Seattle P-I calls a re-vote
?preposterous:? this was a ?generally well-conducted [laughingstock]
election.?
New Year?s Day: Manual recount precinct canvass reveals 684 precincts with
more voters than ballots and 725 other precincts with more ballots than
voters, for ~1,512 ballotless voters and ~4,593 voterless ballots.
Out-of-state press disrespects Rossi?s call for a fair election. Precinct
1823 has 71 more ballots than 272 voters who cast them, the largest
discrepancy between ballots and voters in all of King County. Nearly all of
the discrepancy is due to "provisional ballots".
Jan. 2: Irreconcilable accounting discrepancies in King County: willful
ignorance or criminal negligence?
Jan. 3: Three precincts sharing polling place in Issaquah [2602, 3464 and
"Gilman"] have total number of voting voters noticeably exceeding number of
ballots counted. The Press continues to drag its feet.
Jan. 4: Two absentee votes were cast by Dustin S OCoilain, whose address is
listed as a homeless shelter and the KC Admin building. Several of the
largest counties have huge unexplained discrepancies, for a total of 8,400
more ballots than voters. Seattle P-I says ?What?re ya gonna do??
Jan. 5: 348 provisional voters improperly put ballots directly into
vote-counting machines at polling places: once entered, there is no way to
separate them. In direct response to this, Gregoire says: ?The idea of a
redo I find to be absolutely ludicrous.?
Two deceased voters are discovered, as well as 52 felon voters. In response,
Berendt sends out a letter calling this the ?most accurate election in
state history.?
Jan. 6: Two private citizens file election contests. BIAW investigators
find 7 felons who voted in Snohomish County. Revotewa.com collects close to
150,000 petitions.
Jan. 7: King County Prosecutor, thanks to SoundPolitics tip, will charge
double-voter. Dino Rossi and WSRP announce they will contest the election,
and file suit.
Jan. 8: Rossi campaign shares its legal basis for the contest.
Jan. 9: Yet more documented dead and felon voters. WSJ reports on judge who
registered at KC admin building, claiming Mexican mafia is out to get her.
Jan. 10: King County?s reported discrepancy of 1,217 voterless ballots, is
off by 600 votes. A King County employee blows the whistle. Gregoire thanks
MoveOn.org for their help volunteering to round up affidavits.
Jan. 11: Concerned citizens rally for a re-vote in Olympia. Stefan
Sharkansky delivers great speech. KC Elections confirms that the
unaccounted-for votes are indeed ?around 1,800.?
Jan. 12: Inauguration Day. Legislature scheduled to issue certificates of
election to new office holders. Large majority of Washingtonians support a
re-vote.
Jan. 13: The case for throwing out the gubernatorial election appears
legally airtight. BIAW finds 76 more felon voters.
Jan. 15: Democrats suggest that purging rolls of felons is a bad idea. 35
voters are recorded as registered after 10/18 (the deadline), all of whom
voted provisional on Nov. 2, but these were backdated in the database.
Jan. 16: Sec of State Sam Reed admits to King 5?s Robert Mak: ?It's still
hard to tell... the variables are such that it's hard to say for sure
exactly who won.?
Jan. 17: Jefferson County auditor Donna Eldridge says the huge discrepancy
in King County is anomaly, no good explanation for it.
Jan. 18: Secretary of State agency rule mandates no certifications on
elections unless the number of ballots matches the number of voters.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-12-12, 4:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:35:15 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> Why even talk about it, Derek, if you didn't want to talk about it?
> You're not obliged to answer every post.
Whatever. I _did_ have another point to make in that message. I simply
don't understand why you _want_ to have an argument nobody's going to
listen to.
--
derek
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-12, 8:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:37:12 -0400, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's great, Derek, until the _bad guy_ already _has_ a gun. What do
> you want me to use then, Derek, my charm?
>
And he does. My gun prevents him from taking my life or my stuff.
anti-gun nuts are asking to be raped and pillaged.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Arnold Walker 2005-12-12, 8:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:439e0add$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> And he does. My gun prevents him from taking my life or my stuff. anti-gun
> nuts are asking to be raped and pillaged.
You would be surprised at the number of anti-gunners that own a gun.
Preach that you shouldn't have one....
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| SolarFlare 2005-12-12, 9:21 pm |
| Today and tommorrow will be no different.
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
message news:vc0173-mss.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Whatever. I _did_ have another point to make in that
message. I simply
> don't understand why you _want_ to have an argument
nobody's going to
> listen to.
> --
> derek
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz"> wrote
> Don> wrote:
>
>
>
> How, specifically, Don?
Taking people's money is theft, regardless of reason.
>
> Ah, you're a troll. How silly of me to not see that. So, come up with
> something interesting, if you can? Do you have a point or are you just
> throwing random things out to see what you can get a response from?
You're Libertarian in name only Dave.
You might consider educating yourself.
Taxation is theft, plain and simple, and Libertarians do not advocate it.
They advocate *User Fees*.
Libertarians also live by the *Zero Aggression Principle*.
You however want to force people to do your bidding, ie., picture ID to
vote.
I could shred you 9 ways from Sunday, Dave.
But I'd rather help you to see the way, try these sites:
www.LysanderSpooner.org
www.LewRockwell.com
www.no-treason.com
and finally:
www.two--four.net/weblog.php
| |
|
|
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:bgFmf.142389$y_1.46433@edtnps89...
>
> "John H" <89s@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:439a925e@clear.net.nz...
>
> Two legalized drugs (alcohol and tobacco) already accounts for countless
> damage to our health, our society and our economy. Why you would want to
> add more to the list doesn't make sense.
Well, first off, can you name even 1 person that has died as a result of
smoking marijuana?
Thats what I thought.
People already do illegal drugs and even more people abuse legal drugs.
Intelligent people know that prohibition doesn't work and never has.
You seem to be inflicted with the most common drug in the US, an overdose of
mainstream TEEVEE.
| |
|
| "JoeSP"> wrote
> OK then. legalize them all, cancel the police force, save some money, and
> let god sort 'em out.
Thats a good start.
> I'll be on the other side, with the people who can tell the difference
> between reality and chemical bliss.
Most likely no one would try to change you from doing just that.
Nor should you concern yourself with other people's business.
| |
|
| "Tony Wesley"> wrote
> You wouldn't be able to cancel the police force, but I'd rather they
> spend their enforcement activities on violent crime.
Forget about it, thats dangerous and scary stuff.
All they can do is take pictures after the fact.
What they are good at however is extracting various sums of money from
random folks practicing victimless crimes.
Tax collectors in trick or treat costumes, nothing more.
Get rid of em'.
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz"> wrote
> Because I want people to show ID to prove they live where they want to
> vote? How specifically is that theft, Don? You evaded my question last
> time.
Politicians hire men with guns to steal money from the citizens.
You choose those politicians to do this.
I will never choose someone to steal from you Dave.
Its a Libertarian kinda thing.
But as a fellow Libertarian you already know this.
Or were you lying when you claimed to be one?
| |
|
| "Eric"> wrote
> forget it... your making a rational point to totally irrational people -
> kind of a deer in the headlights thing.
> It would have "WOW!!!" been a FAIR ELECTION!
There's something wrong with this boy's circuit board.
What's *fair* about choosing a new thief, Eric?
Talk about a deer in the headlights.......
| |
|
|
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:7d1a542a67ac6c228691d8a47312ffb1@mixmaster.it...
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:45:34 -0800, Tony Wesley wrote:
>
>
> I agree with this, and would like to see drugs that are currently illegal
> made available cheaply.
>
> The only requirement would be that the user would have to register as a
> drug taker, and pay the cost in increased insurance premiums, possible
> revocation of his driving licence, etc.
>
> The idea would be to give him maximum drug-taking freedom while minimizing
> the cost of his habit to society.
>
> On balance, I agree that it would be a benefit to society if drug users
> were given complete freedom to pursue their habit, especially if their
> drugs removed them from the world before they had a chance to reproduce.
As opposed to drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco.
Doesn't anybody know how to think anymore?
sheesh.....
| |
|
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:439e0add$1_2@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> And he does. My gun prevents him from taking my life or my stuff. anti-gun
> nuts are asking to be raped and pillaged.
I wouldn't go that far.
I think they should be ignored though if they are raped or pillaged.
After all, it would be the height of hypocrisy to save a LIberals life with
a gun that they hate, wouldn't it?
*None squeals so loud as a LIEberal forced to live under his own rules*
--gs, 2005
| |
|
| "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote
> And here, you don't. That's the problem. That's my point. Don,
> somehow, claims that I'm advocating theft (!?!?!) by suggesting that
> (gasp!) someone prove they live where they want to vote.
Now you're outright lying, Dave.
I never said such a thing.
Your problem is twofold.
1) You advocate theft by voting for politicians that hire people to steal
from the citizenry.
That is wrong.
2) You want to force others to do your bidding by making them have a photo
ID before they too choose a politician that will hire people to steal from
the citizenry.
Hello!
Anyone home inside your skull?
| |
| Steve Spence 2005-12-14, 10:21 am |
| Don wrote:
> Well, first off, can you name even 1 person that has died as a result of
> smoking marijuana?
They might as well die, they are useless for anything important. Can't
remember important things like job safety or even showing up for work on
time.
alocohol, cigarettes, marijuana and many others are a drain on our
healthcare system, cause employment issues, drive up product costs due
to mistakes and poor work efficiency.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-14, 12:21 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:09:07 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Taking people's money is theft, regardless of reason.
What does that have to do with having people prove that they live where
they want to vote, Don? Perhaps you have my posts confused with those
of someone else?
[color=darkred]
> You're Libertarian in name only Dave.
> You might consider educating yourself.
Well, their platform matches mine more closely than any others. After
that, I lean right. The Democrats I disagree with more often than not.
> Taxation is theft, plain and simple, and Libertarians do not advocate it.
> They advocate *User Fees*.
What's that got to do with someone proving they live where they want to
vote, Don?
> Libertarians also live by the *Zero Aggression Principle*.
> You however want to force people to do your bidding, ie., picture ID to
> vote.
Ah, he finally gets to his point. If you consider proving you're
eligible to vote as an act of agression, well, we disagree.
> I could shred you 9 ways from Sunday, Dave.
That would be really intimidating, I guess, if I valued what you think
at all, Don.
> But I'd rather help you to see the way, try these sites:
Thanks, but no thanks, Don. Your rant equating me wanting people to
prove they're eligible to vote where they want to with theft, pretty
much makes anything else you say of zero value.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-14, 12:21 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:21:30 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz"> wrote
[color=darkred]
> Politicians hire men with guns to steal money from the citizens.
> You choose those politicians to do this.
Cops provide value to society. Obviously you disagree with that.
Obviously we disagree.
> I will never choose someone to steal from you Dave.
Great, then you don't vote?
> Its a Libertarian kinda thing.
You are doing Libertarians a disservice by pretending to be a spokesman.
> But as a fellow Libertarian you already know this.
> Or were you lying when you claimed to be one?
Do I carry a card? Nope. Do I believe "leave people alone _as much as
is possible to maintain order_"? Yes. We need cops. We need the
military. We need fire and EMS protection. These things cost money,
and taxes need to fund them.
Grow up, Don.
| |
| Dave Hinz 2005-12-14, 12:21 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:34:17 GMT, Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote
>
> Now you're outright lying, Dave.
> I never said such a thing.
Then you have missed my point when you answered, because that's the
point I was making.
> Your problem is twofold.
> 1) You advocate theft by voting for politicians that hire people to steal
> from the citizenry.
> That is wrong.
Welcome to the world, Don. Politicians exist. Best bet is to hire one
who pisses me off less than the other guy. Wail and gnash your teeth
all you want, but that's the system at this time. Grow up and accept
it, and then work to change it from within.
> 2) You want to force others to do your bidding by making them have a photo
> ID before they too choose a politician that will hire people to steal from
> the citizenry.
Yes. I don't trust some guy to only vote once. There is no reason a
dishonest person's opinion should be worth double, triple, or more of
mine.
> Hello!
> Anyone home inside your skull?
Your rhetorical techniques might be more effective if you were stronger
on logic, than on insults. Just so you know.
|
|
|
|
|