f13.net

Read about it here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3885663.stm).

In essence, the US govt is looking at what would be required to postpone the elections, in case of a terrorist attack.

So, why would they want to do this?  A desperate ploy to hold onto power?  Delay the election until the political climate is more to their advantage?  I'm struggling to find an interpretation that isn't, "We don't want to lose waaaaah."

The conspiracy theorist in me suspects that they are just trying to marry the concept of the election and the concept of terrorism together...the 'average Joe' may feel more comfortable with the staus quo rather than take a gamble on someone new.

Anything to sow fear and dependency on the government for direction.

More rationally, I think that making ANY changes because of possible threats is EXACTLY what the terrorists want. Perhaps if we weren't flushing billions down the quagmire that is Iraq, we could afford to spend more money running the terrorists down. I read last week that Al Qaeda's leadership is suspected of being holed up along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. That is a hell of a long way from Baghdad.

Do you really think a terrorist attack just prior to elections would have predictable effects on the vote?  Do you think it would sway people left?  I highly doubt that, but I don't see that as the reason this is going into effect.

You saw how much of a clusterfuck florida was last election and that is just because some stupid county reps can't run a fucking voting booth.  How do you think votes would get counted if one or many voting precints got blown up?  What would happen?  We don't have anything right now to take care of that possibility.  It would yet AGAIN send the fucking election into the judges.  I don't think anyone wants that mess again.

What if they hit a main power distribution center?  A large portion of a state or several states could be out of power without time to repair or bring in generators for the fully electronic voting system that is required now in many counties after 2000.

It is just a method of covering the bases.  I think a delay to let people calm down from fear a little bit, and time to repair/make alternate plans to get around any damage caused.

Christ, do you really think any administration would care about staying in power a scant two weeks longer?  Sheesh.  That is like saying florida 2000 was an elaborate Clinton administration plan to hold onto power longer that just happened to fail.  Well past tinfoil hat time IMO.

It depends on how it would be used.  If they delay the election just because of a threatened attack, I'm outta here.  On the other hand, if there is actually an attack on, or just before, election day, I believe that a delay would be in order.

The way the administration keeps throwing out the words 'terrorism' and 'election' in the same press conference just makes me suspicious about what will happen.

I agree with your post.

As close as Florida was, if you detonated a handful of polling places, you'd have altered the outcome of the election. And yes, believe it or not, different geographic areas have historic voting tendencies, which are often a factor in forming voting districts.

But moreso than something of this nature being used to affect the election's outcome, you have to consider what havoc it would create if we had something like 9/11, or even the big eastern blackout on election day.

Some folks are trying to whip out the conspiracy theories already, but it's basic CYA. You put in a disaster clause so we have a process to move forward even in the worst-case scenario.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Who said anything about delaying the election to only hold onto power for two weeks?  One of the most obvious abuses would be to hold off the elections until they felt the voting climate was more to their liking.  Given the track record in Congress right now, with key votes being held up to armtwist a few more people to vote the "right" way, it's not much of a stretch.

It is of course, just possible, someone thought they'd look bloody stupid if didn't have a plan in place in case of a real terrorist attack which could feasibly immobilise a siginificant proportion of, ooh, say, Florida.

On Spetember 11th, there were municipal elections scheduled in NYC. As a result of the attacks on the Trade Center, they were postponed for a week.

One would think it would be reasonable to be able to do such a thing on a natnional scale in case of mass casualties due to an attack. For example, on the day of the elections, DC goes boom. The probable nation wide response would be the evacuation of most city centers. And you're going to try to hold elections while this is going on?

Less tinfoil hat people.

Prudent planning != OMG BUSH PREEMPTIVELY STEALS ELECTION! MASS APOCALYPSE COMMING! SPACE LASERS MAKE MY HEAD HURT AND VOTE REPUBLICAN! AAAAA!

But after all, apparently all that's require to immobilize Floridian voters is a ballot.

It doesn't concern me one bit that they are planning for an eventual terror attack on or around election day.

These guys sit around and think up scenarios all day and night trying to prepare US for everything.

My concern is that we don't hear about every scenario they are planning for, we only hear (via media) the ones that will provide more support for the current administration.

I was reading a speech by President Bush at Oak Grove and it was basically "We have maintained our freedom, but there will be more attacks, but don't worry, I mean worry, uh"  paraphrased of course.

I dunno, maybe we should ask the Spanish people how it affected them?

Hmm, just recently a country had massive terrorist attacks on the eve of thier major national elections that could possibly have had a serious influence on the outcome of the election.

Someone in Washington decides that maybe there should be plans in place incase something like this happens in the U.S..

Sounds reasonable to me, but then again I generally don't assume everything I hear was done with malevolent forethought.

Once bitten, twice shy.

The PNAC has done quite enough furthering their global agendas, Kerry may be a douchebag, but at least he's not plugged into those douchebags.

Without a complete count, which is now impossible, I don't recognize GWB as the president. Odd that it all happened on the crucial final state, which his brother happened to be running at the time. A brother who is also a founding member of the PNAC, and now several principle cabinet members are also from the PNAC. Odd.

It's not tinfoil hat theory, it's history. Anyone who's done even the slightest research knows that attacking Iraq was planned out well beforehand, and 9/11 handed them the means, circuitous as they may have been. That's the facts.

So everything that has the possibility of being a shady move by this administration and their backers in the PNAC must be examined and monitored for tampering. It's just the smart thing to do.

I suspected Bush Jr.'s administration, heartened by the electoral college overriding the popular vote the last time around, would try something like this.   However, I was hoping that it was just paranoia.

They're basically saying something along the lines of, "So long as a terrorist threat exists, we cannot have elections."

What this argument neglects to mention is a terrorist threat has existed throughout the duration of humankind.   If the election is delayed, when will it take place?   The next month?  No, the terrorists would have adequette time to expect that.  The next week?  No, still too risky.    The next day?   No, the terrorists still exist, dammit!

This is even worse than allowing the electoral college to swing them another election.    Since the election never takes place, Bush Jr. never gets to his second term.   This allows them to circumvent the two term limitation.

But no, obviously I'm wearing a tin hat or fearing outer space lasers or whatnot.   Surely there's a rational reason to fear terrorism.   There's *always* a rational fear for terrorism.

You guys have it all wrong.

Their real plan is to consistantly equate elections with terror attacks so that come election time they can hit us with "heightened security" in "at risk"  (read:  Left Leaning) districts.  Sent into a frenzy because of the constant Bush Administration fear mongering, people will welcome the aditional security.  The 10+ hour lines at the polling booths in these "at risk" (read: Left Leaning) areas will supress voter turnout in "at risk" (read:  Left Leaning) areas to all new lows, throwing what will look to be a total Kerry landslide in the polls a week ahead of the vote into a very slight electoral college victory for Bush (but not the popular vote, again).

Feel free to tell me all about tin foil hats, I'll bump this thread on November 3rd.

Al-Qaeda could be just as effective if they try to push the election to the RIGHT.

Imagine that the race is close, as in 2000.  It's 49% Bush 49% Gore and Florida is once again the close state.  Only a few thousand votes separate the two candidates.  AQ unleashes an attack in Florida cities, primarily Democratic districts, that prevent the people there from voting.

In the days following the recovery, Bush has won the election, but only by a few thousand votes.  Democrats charge that it's illegitimate because an estimated 20,000 voters, the vast majority Democrats, were unable to vote due to the terrorist attacks!  Other Democrats demand a Congressional investigation, charging that the Bush administration may have KNOWN about the attack and LET it happen in order to help re-elect Bush.  Meanwhile, public opinion has been whipped into such a frenzy that Bush's popularity falls several points, because he failed to prevent another attack (intentionally or not).  Republicans say it's impossible to let these people vote NOW, after everyone already knows what the results are.  And allowing the whole nation to revote would be prejudicial, because public opinion has swayed since the terrorist attack, and allowing that to change to government would be EXACTLY WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT!  Democrats are not about to lose AGAIN in the Supreme Court.  Chaos ensues and civil war quickly follows.

Bruce

Does that mean the terrorists won if they can postpone elections in the USA with a simple terrorist act?

No, postponement wouldn't be winning.  Winning a battle, perhaps, but hardly the war.  It's not like the elections couldn't proceeed the following month.

Bruce

I'm just wondering if you realize that our nation's national elections have been determined by the electoral college for the entire duration of it's history? You do realize that the popular vote has zero impact when it comes to deciding who won?

The electoral college can't "override" the popular vote when the popular vote didn't have priority in the first place.

Here (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf) is a good resource to read up on.

I'm sorry but I'm just sick and tired of morons who slept through government class spouting off about things they don't understand.

I believe there are a number of states who have passed laws forcing their representatives in the electoral college to vote according to the popular vote in the state.

Possibly they're making a contingency plan for the worst?  You know, what governments are supposed to do?

I believe you're right, but even so the overall national popular vote is not what determines the election.

Edit:

Besides, I don't remember any electoral college members actually changing their vote during the whole process. What he's most likely referencing is the fact that the national pop vote was for gore while the electoral college came out for bush. I don't recall any reps swinging their votes though.

I am most likely wrong though. Correct me if I am. heh.

To quote a great guy...
Go sell crazy someplace else were all full up here.

Um, cevik, a CNN poll on 7/12 (shortly after the Edwards announcement) has the race at 50% Kerry, 48% Bush. Margin of error is +/- 3.5%. Hardly a landslide. Kerry's next big push in the polls will come with his nomination at the DNC.

I'd say it'd take at least 65/35 to constitute a landslide, and I don't see a 15% swing between now and November.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

I think some state's electoral college voters switched sides to Hayes during the big Hayes-Tilden dispute.  I am pretty sure there have been a couple of times when some rogue elector cast their vote for some oddball candidate.

No geldy, they are saying "if shit blows up we need plans to deal with it.

Nice fearmongering though.

No, no, no....can't be that. Not enough moustache-twisting.

Because after all, the administration is "EVIL EVIL SPAWN OF SATAN EATING A LITTER OF STILLBORN PUPPIES WHILE RAPING GRANDMA THROUGH A HOLE DRILLED IN HER LEFT TEMPLE". Haven't you been keeping up with the political discussions around here?

It's a purely partisan opposition anyway. If they didn't create a contingency plan, the left would eat Bush alive if something were to happen....probably claiming that he had something done (or at least intentionally left us vulnerable) so he could steal the election amid all the chaos and confusion.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

If that's true, I don't ever think there has been a landslide in a Presidental election in US history.  Not even FDR won by that much.

Read more about presidential politics, you are clearly ignorant when it comes to this subject.  Your definition of "landslide" does not remotely intersect with any other sane person's definition of landslide in a presidential election.  My prediction is that Kerry will be up in the polls 53-55% the week before the election, Bush will be hovering at the 40-45% mark, pretty much the lower ceiling of his support, with only people like Dark Vengance and Dark Dryad voting for him (i.e. only the Kool Aid drinkers).  Come election day, there will be the lowest voter turnout in history (due to 10+ hour lines in left leaning districts), but the electorate will be so confident that there will be a Kerry blowout that people will say screw the lines and not vote.  The end result will be hearalded as the lowest voter turnout in recent history, with a final result of around 49% Kerry 48.7% Bush, with Bush narrowly taking the electoral college thanks to extremely narrow wins in Florida and Ohio.  The polling results will be blamed on cell phones and VOIP applications skewing the telephone polling.

Kerry's biggest swing state win will be Oregon, which he'll take by between 10 and 15 points.  Everyone will list Oregon as a blue state for the 2008 election, not realizing that the real reason Oregon went so heavily for Kerry is because we mail our ballots in two weeks ahead of time, so long polling lines do not affect us.  This is also why Bush has canceled almost all of his advertisement in this "swing state", because Rove knows that they can't take the state through their typical means of voter intimidation and they'd rather focus the money elsewhere.

But it doesn't matter, I'll bump this thread in November when the smoke clears and I'll either be right or wrong..

Without checking the numbers, the Reagan/Mondale election may have been close... linky (http://www.multied.com/elections/1984state.html)

this whole thread = 90% retards.
If planes blow up the middle school in my area on election day afternoon, then guess what: I CANT VOTE, SHERLOCKS. DEADLINE PASSES ON ELECTION DAY AND I GET PWNED BY TERRERESZT.

unless of course, the government says: "In light of planes blowing up middle school buildings, we will extend the voting deadline and/or create a national 'make-up' day for blowed up districts and allow people the opportunity to drive to an unblowedup school so they can vote in this election."

But I like your theories better - more chickenlittle-ish, which is a much more interesting nursery rhyme than mine.


---
edit: only 90% retards. sorry, I skimmed.

Stupid Gain Publishing pop-ups.  I don't think it was 65/35.  NY, CA, and TX were all between 53 and 63 for Ronnie, no way in hell the rest of the country could swing the average up.

Nowhere near (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1984).

58.8% to 40.5%... I stand corrected.  Thanks for the link btw, interesting stuff!

Also 1972:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1972

Bruce

Looks like 58.8% Reagan in the popular vote.

I suppose I stand corrected on my assessment of what constitues a landslide in the popular vote. Receiving only ~35% seemed like a fairly crushing loss, and so I pulled 65% out of my ass to make the numbers nice and pretty.

Although, looking at landslide elections like FDR's win in 1936 (60.8% to 38.5% to 2.7%), LBJ in 1964 (61.1% to 38.5%), Nixon in 1972 (60.7% to 37.5% to 1.8%), I'm not THAT far off the mark.

Cevik is describing a lead more along the lines of Bush's win in 1988, or Reagan's win in 1980. Impressive, decisive wins to be sure....I just tend to think of "landslide" victories as fairly rare. Based on a ~10% margin of victory in the popular vote, we've had 4 "landslide" victories since 1980, including Clinton in 1996.

*shrug* When you factor in the margin of error on that CNN poll, Bush is in a dead heat with Kerry. To think that he's going to pull even a 10% swing before November is a stretch.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Never base your assesment off of one poll, Kerry looks to be taking a nice lead, and the DNC hasn't happened yet nor have the Americans been booed at the Olympic Games in Greece, Bush will take a hit in the polls from both events.

Most of these polls happened before the Veep pick:

NBC (MoE 5.0%) Kerry 54% Bush 43%
Newsweek (MoE 5.0%) Kerry 51% Bush 45%
Time (MoE 3.5%) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
ARG (MoE 3.5%) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
CBS (MoE 5.0%) Kerry 49% Bush 45%
Zogby (MoE 3.1%) Kerry 46% Bush 44%

As I said, most are before the Edwards pick.  If you were seeing a dead even race, some of those polls would be on the Bush side of the coin, but instead all of them are breaking for Kerry.  Before the veep pick and before the DNC we're already seeing a couple of point lead for Kerry.  Historically, those who identify themselves as "undecided" break extremely heavily in favor of the challenger in a challenger/incumbant race.  It's not too far out in left field to think that Kerry will have a 10 point lead in the last week of the race when the undecides decide to evict Bush.

For historical reference, the Carter/Reagan election polled almost identical to this election.  The race was a statistical dead heat until the very end, when Reagan pulled off a 9 point win in the polls, and that race had a third party candidate that pulled 6 points, this race will have no such third party candidate (Nader who is so far only on one state ballot, will be lucky to pull in 2 points at the poll and I'd bet he ends up lower since he's running around 80%+ unfavorables right now)..

The only poll on that list that isn't a statistical tie is NBC's.

Awww, isn't Arc cute?  Sorry, Arc.  You lost all credibility, what was it now... about 3 years ago?  My how time flies.

Certainly if Al Qaeda attacks in late Oct, it may well happen more anti-Bush voters will actually vote in Nov.  The key to winning elections now is simply stirring enough voters to actually take time out of their day to vote for you.  Another attack on American soil, after all the time, money, and goodwill Bush and co have flushed down the toilet by following the neocon agenda of GIT IRAQ has done little to nothing to secure America from future attacks.  If Kerry would come forward with a clear plan on how to better deal with terrorism, he'd score major points against an administration seen as very weak in finding ways to combat terrorism.

The preparations seem to be looking to find a way to delay elections, in the event of an attack along the lines of the one that may have altered the recent election in Spain, whereas the conservatives here are talking about attacks on the day of elections.  Two different beasts, wouldn't you say?  Obviously, if an attack occurs in Florida on voting day, the voting would need to be rescheduled.  I don't think there's any need to reschedule the election if an attack occurs three or seven days before the election.  Doing so, in my opinion, favors the conservatives, as they now can control the timing of the election.

Having read up on the history of Karl Rove, I put nothing past this man.

The sky shockingly remains unfallen:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040713/D83PU9TO1.html

But if they were true ties we'd see about half of them break for Bush the other half for Kerry, instead we see all of them "tied" on the Kerry side of things, it's pretty indicative of a 2-3 point Kerry lead at this time (i.e. a lead but it's within the MoE of all the polls so it looks like a tie.  This is almost exactly how polling looks when there is a lead within the MoE of the polls).  It may be "too close to call" right now, but predicting that the tides will turn into around a 10 point lead for Kerry in the final weeks of the election (if we stay on the current course) isn't much of a stretch at all.  Especially when you consider the undecideds will most likely break for the challenger.

Like I said, assuming my vicodin and alcohol addiction hasn't finally killed me by November, I'll bump this thread and you can either tell me how horribly wrong, or how insidiously right I am.

I don't know enough about statistics to say one way or another.  I think there might be some crunching you can do with multiple samples, but it would be complicated by the fact that the polls probably weren't conducted in identical manners.  Meh.


Wow, the administration comes out with a statement saying that they aren't planning on delaying the elections.  That's worth almost as much as Cevik's and Soulflame's tin hatting.

Edit: Stupid, stupid BBCode.

True enough, I'm just making a predicition, an (un)educated guess.  But we only have to wait 4 short months to see how things pan out, so I've made my guess now we'll see what happens.

So only the left holds the president responsible for the security of the country? That is interesting.

I would expect any president (and his administration) to prepare for the worst in this situation. However,I don't think that nebulous warnings from Tom Ridge are an integral part of any plan. Instead, they cover the administration's ass in the event that something does occur ("See? We TOLD you something might happen!", much like a TV weather man), with the added bonus of keeping the populace afraid (insert Goering quote here =P ).



I am still hoping that Nader is just rattling his sabre this time, and that he will pull out before the election. Someone as educated as he MUST realize that his candidacy in 2000 set back his environmental agenda by 20 years- I don't think Bush lost too many votes to Nader (unless they were the confused octagenarian variety that helped Pat Buchanan in Florida). Gore may not be have been the ideal Green platform candidate, but I think it is reasonable to say that he would have kept most of Clinton's environmental policies in place, instead of rolling many of them back as Bush has.

As a substitute for addressing my little dose of reality, this was lacking. If you're going to duck the data and go for the middle school, at least do it with style and stop recycling the slings you been slinging around for three years now.

So that you can try again: The reasoning behind this motion is that if planes explode up your local polling HQ, you have a chance to actually CAST A VOTE AT SOME POINT in this election. The alternative is to not get to vote because the building where all your voting machines are got blowed up.

PPS:
Translation: "I'm making this up."

---
edit: your reply wasn't 99% retard. It was 99% not addressing my post at all

I'm sorry, Arc.  Does using your own tactics against you strike you as juvenile?

Actually Im voting for neither of them asshat.

It seems to be only the left that is going Chicken Little over the suggestion that we create a contingency plan in the event of a terrorist attack on or around election day.



This separates you from some other folks within the thread.



I guess suggesting the Bush administration has some insidious desire to keep people afraid works, if you view George and Laura like this:

(http://www.stuffucrave.com/image/borisnatasha.jpg)

Personally, I thought the intent was to make people aware of potential threats, so they would notice and report unusual activity, so (golly gee) we might avert an attack and save lives.

Still not entirely sure what the threat level has to do with the notion of rescheduling elections in the event of a terrorist attack.

Bring the noise.
Cheers................

My tactics are to toss out a mild snarky comment, and then dump my twisted version of the facts at you. Your tactics are to tell me my opinions are teh stupid and then walk away.

Tellin me I are teh stupid is fair game - I did it first. But I want the subsequent paragraphs where you say, "oh yeah I guess that makes sense."

I wish Laura was that hot.

Unfortunately, they haven't given the public ANY INFORMATION about potential threats, other than the fact that they exist. In order for the public to be of any real assistance, credible information needs to be disseminated (in fact, I could argue that telling people in positions to be of assistance is as or more effective than a public broadcast. Directed information is paid more attention, in my experience) . Otherwise, you get Chicken Littles all over the place pointing at brown people in fear.

Here's the point- since 9/11, citizens of the 'civilized' world (and Americans in particular) are aware that potential threats from terrorists exist, and that they should conduct themselves with that knowledge in the back of their minds. When I hear "there is evidence that there is a possible terrorist attack being planned", my first instinct isn't "Oh no! I should be vigilant!", it is "No shit, Sherlock."

Yes, but it's more fun to stir the pot, and see what develops.

Sadly, not many took the bait.  Pity, I'm a touch bored at work (router is down, can't access the other office.)

Developing contingency plans is sensible.  Blame the media for casting it in such a negative light.

Also, it's fun to overreact to anything the Bushies do.  Expect the worst of them, and even then, they will sometimes manage to surprise you.

Actually, here's the whole crux of this story.

The Bush administration is making backup plans in case shit blows up and we need to postpone or otherwise delay the election. THIS IS GOOD. All good electoral governments should have these plans in place.

However, the Bush administration has made it a point of media coverage that they are indeed planning for the possibility of election day attacks, and what will need to be done in that instance. In other words, they are accomplishing the goal of showing they are indeed "on top of things" in the terror war, while also subtly insuinuating that "teh turrorists" might be attacking us during the election. Not only do they stir up a little fear, unrest and despair without being overt about it, but they also bring out all the tinfoil hat wearing left-leaning motherfuckers who immediately spout off about how "THE FASCISTS IS DELAYING ELECTIONS TO STAY IN POWAR OMFG!! BUSH IS NAZI! YAH GOERRING EVEN!!1!2!!!"

Thus, making the louder and stupider elements of the left look publicly ridiculous.

Genius.

Thanks, I always appreciate resources.  I recall they taught this to me back in middle school... not that day to day living gave me much reason to remember it.

Anyhow, the principle I'm referring to is more along the lines of "it's failure to reflect the national popular will." (pg 13).

It is, in the very essay you provided for me, listed is a reasonable (translated: not moronic) form of dissatisfaction to hold about the electoral college.

But, I will admit that given how close the last popular vote is, it could have gone either way and they'd have disappointed half the country.

Ah well, I'll just hide behind the popular Capital Hill defense:

"If you're not confused, you're not well informed."

Confused as I am, I'm apparently one of the more informed voters here.   Yes indeed, also various farm fowl flies from my orifices.

Feh, like the disorganized Democratic effort really needs to look more ridiculous.

Regardless, from what I'm hearing, not many people are particularly enjoying Bush Jr's administration.     I'd be surprised if Bush Jr. pulls even nearly the popular vote this time around even if he decides to issue another unnecessary tax refund/nation-wide bribe with that money we don't have anymore he's been spending.

But I like to think I'm open minded.   I could be wrong about how badly Bush Jr is doing and that's just the sentiment in my neck of the woods, however.   I'm still obligated by my current observations to vote his ass out of office though.  Such is the gravity of this that I'd actually go so far as to think his administration is taking measures to delay it.

THE FASCISTS IS DELAYING ELECTIONS TO STAY IN POWAR OMFG!! BUSH IS NAZI! YAH GOERRING EVEN!!1!2!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to this essay I've been assigned to read encouraging taking a dialectic perspective of a situation in order to dispel falsely held premises about an idea.   Savor that irony, if you will.

[Edited in order to tone down major political incited conniptions into more manageable small ones]

No offense but havent you been unemployed for quite a while? My point is while you may not need that money it has helped many people out. I can say thet even though I have a decent amount of cash on hand due to some prudent investments wy wifes health has been seriously draining that reserveand small as it was that extra cash helped pay off some medical bills.

It may not have been nessisary for YOU but others it helped greatly.

I'm afraid that perspective is what made it such an effective bribe.

I wish I could say that Bush Jr's administration was issuing that tax refund out of the kindness of his heart.   However, if that were the case, he probably wouldn't have taken steps to spend money that was intended by the previous administration for social security, medicare, ect, and other programs that helped people.

What I'm saying is that yes, I recognize that it may appear shortsighted of me to not appreciate the situation in which an individual who desperately needed this windfall.    However, it just seems to me that it'd be a far greater crime is to not to recognize that this windfall was not intended to help anyone in particular other than just drum up support.   The resulting national debt from this and other forms of Bush Jr administrations' mismanagement of money has resulted in a far worse situation for certain disadvantaged groups such as the elderly or those needing federal medicare than they were originally in.

The perspective that anti-Bush supporters are adopting is that that the windfall was just one of the many moves his administration has performed in order to provide a smokescreen while they cut the taxes heavily in favor of the rich.   This line of reasoning, should it hold up, would prove that if your voting Bush Jr. on the grounds that he was nice enough to provide you a windfall when you needed it most: you've been duped.    You've been bribed into ignoring you've been backstabbed and by voting there you've actually requested that the same corrupt administration be reinstated.    In other words, you may not have had to pay those hospital bills in the first place if Bush Jr.'s administration wasn't pulling crap like tax rebates and tax cuts to the rich.

But the requirement for that anti-Bush argument is that the money spent which resulted in a federal debt that Bush Jr. generated which (we know from many Clinton speeches) was previously intended for medicare and social security was generated from mismanagement of funds as opposed to good reasons.  

Supporting "mismanagement of funds", I heard that massive tax cuts that favor the rich have occured, and that Bush Jr. has taken us from a big federal surplus to a big federal debt.

Supporting "the debt had to occur it wasn't Bush Jr's fault" I need only look at the 9/11 disaster, the resulting worldwide manhunt in Pakistan, and the (debatably unneccessary) war effort in Iraq.  

(I'm not sure if that effort would result in several hundred million, no sorry billion, oh wait I meant TRILLION dollars of debt.  However, what do I know about how they spend money in the white house?  From what I understand the costs of toilet seats are astronomical.)

Then of course there's the question of if federal Medicare was a pipe dream to begin with and if the baby boomers will really need social security when they hit old age.

But, correct me if any of this is wrong, like most mortal men I'm just passing along my own interpretation of second hand information here.

My sympathies on your wife's health.  I will take issue with how much the tax cuts helped people though.  My refund this year was about $400 more than last year.  That's nice money, but nothing to write home about.

I obviously need to move up in the tax brackets so I can get the most out of the Republican controlled congress.

I agree that the Electoral College isn't the ideal way to handle our national elections and that a better way most likely could be found.

I certainly don't have a problem with dissatisfaction. That's every citizen's right and democratic duty. The only thing I do have a problem with is the implication that Bush was somehow handed the election unfairly through underhanded means where, in reality, it worked out exactly the way it was constitutionally intended to.

Well the solution isnt to not give tax breaks it to not spend like a crack whore when giving them. This is something the shrub has yet to learn. Tax cuts in and of themselves do exacly what he was trying to do but you cant spend money you dont have. Thats kinda like basic economics and stuff.

I'd like to point out that at the time it was a good solution to a daunting problem, namely, how to establish something akin to a democracy in a geographically large area with rudimentary communications and a largely illiterate populace.  We're not talking a city-state here where everyone goes down to the town square to hash things out.

You know, I would have chalked up talk of "OMG BUSH IS CANCELLING TEH ELECTION TO STAY IN POWZ0RZ!!1!" as alarmist hoohah.

Then the administration sent up the Patriot 2 trial balloon.  (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot2draft.html) (Explanation (http://www.change-links.org/Patriotact2.htm))

Yeah. Some low level fascist flunky thinking "hey, what if they go for this?" - all too believeable.

My favorite.

A lot of things are illegal while not being 'federal crimes' you know.

And to Haemish:


I agree here, but isn't anyone else annoyed that the 'louder and stupider elements of the left' appear to be the news media on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc...  The only ones who aren't are FOX and other ridiculously right wing trash.  As trashy as FOX is, I currently find all the others listed just as trashy on the opposite side.

That's the best part, that section doesn't even mention legality of the activities.

It was a good solution for the 18th century, but hardly appropriate in the 21st.

Bruce

This was not a "bribe", it was part of an economic stimulus package. You may recall that the economy was turning to shit, in terms of consumer spending, unemployment, corporate spending, etc. The dotcoms imploded, and the election fiasco left a lot of folks holding their breath as it pertained to spending. Yknow, if you paid attention to that sort of thing.

So what do you do to spur a poor economy? You put more money into the hands of the people. We had a huge projected federal surplus, one that the government was eager to spend, even under Clinton. Bush basically came in and said "this money belongs to the people, not us".....and so he proposed to give a portion of it back in the form of a check, based on the amount of taxes paid (which is only fair...you don't send $500 to someone who has only paid $100 in taxes). Believe it or not, most of those checks got spent. It did help to provide a boost to the consumer economy.

He also kicked in some tax cuts. The left in particular likes to point to the highest income brackets and point out that they get the most relief. They also pay the most in taxes by a wide margin....remember that we use a GRADUATED income tax. Not only do the rich pay more money, they pay a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income in taxes.

Yknow what the rich also do? They invest. That's right, they put money into starting up new businesses, or providing capital for existing companies. That spurs the corporate economy, and can help to provide new jobs.

A very large chunk of our spending has been due to the need to bolster our national security, post 9/11. Many, including myself, would argue that this is not an area where we can say "sorry, can't afford it".

And this is where folks say "Iraq, Iraq, we didn't need to go into Iraq"....but based on the information that was available, supporting the war appeared to be the correct thing to do. But don't take it from me, let's see what John Kerry had to say on the subject:



Source article. (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040712/1/3lmxl.html)

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Classic supply side/trickle down economics, but I don't believe that rich people's spending is what drives the economy.  Spending on consumer goods by low and middle income individuals is a more important force in our modern economy.

But wouldn't "clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power" imply that the individual is providing intel to a foreign government, or at least is acting with the intent to do so?

For example of what they are talking about, studying the architecture of the empire state building is not big deal....studying the architecture of the ESB and prviding the data to Syria (for a random example), well, that is a problem.

Or am I just misunderstanding that one? Did I miss the clause where the government gets to drive tanks over your first-born for political dissent or something?

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

Where do you think those people get their income? It's not what the rich SPEND, it's what they INVEST that makes the biggest economic impact. Those investments provide working capital for companies to grow and develop. It costs money to make money. Unless the owner insists on doing all the work himself/herself, they will need employees, and those employees will need to be paid.

For a very simple example of the cycle:
Entrepreneurs with working capital -> New businesses -> New Jobs -> lower unemployment -> money going into the hands of employees -> consumer spending -> money going to businesses -> money going to investors and employees -> consumer spending and investment....

Besides, the tax rebates went to people of various income levels. I got about $400, and I spent it. Seems to me that the package realized that both sides are major factors to spurring the economy.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

There's a difference between alarmist over-reactions and being aware that your current administration has been proven many times over to be willing to go to illegal lengths to further their goals. Not some crackpot website, but real, hard facts.

An alarmist overreaction would be moving into the hills and building a bunker for the end times surely to come. Posting concerns on a website is normal, but hey. Mock away. I didn't realize we were to be put to scrutiny for concern over real issues, I guess that falls into the "it's cool to mock" category. Damn that's one huge category, apparently.

Hey, some nice talk on voodoo economics, but I won't mock ;)

I think you overestimate the amount of money the rich (nebulous group that it is) invest in some sort of new business.  Mutual funds drive the stock market, banks provide small business loans, 'the rich' do not go around lending their money to people with business plans.

Venture capitalists might, however they shot their wad in the 90s and no amount of a tax cut is going to get them back in the game anytime soon.

Concerning Patriot II:  I dislike any law that says what you're doing is wrong, depending on who you are.  For the record, I also don't like 'hate crimes' laws for very similar reasons.

You're a moron.  Where do you think banks get the money to lend?  That's right, from rich people with money in their bank accounts.

Only people who get their information from watching Mr. Burns on The Simpson's think the rich keep all their money in large stacks of bills inside their mansion.

Bruce

In a bank?  Really?  Why the hell would they have their money in a bank?  You get much better returns from tax-free muni-funds, or just straight up investment in stocks.  Shit, investment real estate property kicks ass too.  Even your local stock broker will have a money market fund for your liquid assets that will be pulling in 5% or more.

Not to mention that with the federal lending rate being about 2% and the commercial rates being rock bottom too, it's not a lack of fucking money in the system that is/was causing the slowdown.

Eat some more fucking paint chips jack-ass.

New business is certainly not the only area where people invest. This is quite correct. Providing capital to existing business for purposes of expansion is also an important role.

Banks do provide small business loans. You are correct that the rich don't go lending money to mom and pop to start a fruit stand. Of course, banks do that....many banks also have investors to answer to.

Oh and mutual funds? Mutual funds invest in various stocks and bonds....all they do is maintain a diverse portfolio of investments, and put their client's money into that portfolio. It still ends up being real money from investors, getting invested in real companies.



Venture capitalist = a rich person that is willing to provide capital to a new business. Semantics for teh win.

Where there is opportunity, there will be investors. The amount of risk just determines how many of them are willing to pony up the greenbacks. The more greenbacks they have, the more they can afford to risk.



In the item you cited as your "favorite", I don't see how that is the case. Again, did I miss something there? Or are you referring to another item within the Act?

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

EDIT: Clarified a bit on mutual funds.

The initial offering of the stock or bond gets the company cash, after that though, it becomes more of an item that the market can place a bet on.  Buying shares in a company vaguely does get some of the money to the company (sorta) but its main effect is in the size of the BMW that the broker drives.  The stock market is more about making money on the performance of existing companies, than investing money in companies that want to grow.


Venture capitalist = a rich person that is willing to provide capital to a new business. Semantics for teh win.

The climate has more influence on the investment than the available cash.  It's like having a billion bucks in the bank and wondering how much you'd bet that the coin will land on its edge.  The assumption that money in the pocket will be spent/risked/invested is a bad one to make.


That's true, it doesn't make the activity a crime, what it does do is make the person a criminal (of a sort) for doing it.  These days being labeled as such will probably get you thrown in the slammer double time.

Hence, my complete disdain for almost all media outlets, journalists (Hanzii excepted) and the entire business of "news reporting" in general.

Everyone of those motherfuckers needs to contract a crotchrotting veneral disease.

But when the stock rises, the company can sell additional shares, and fetch a nice price....this provides additional capital from time to time. Issuing stock is a get way to drum up working capital, though the stock price may take a hit. This can be particularly effective in terms of channel expansion....a good example of this would be the new brake pad division in the movie Tommy Boy.

The mutual fund buys the stock, some newly issued and some at market value....the investor is essentially betting on their portfolio of stocks to do well. If the mutual fund performs well, the clients make money proportionate to what they invested.



A man with $500 has much less tolerance for the risk experienced at a $5 blackjack table than a man with $500,000. The guy with $500 might not even play, while the guy with $500k could drop $1000 without putting a serious dent in his pocketbook.

It's risk vs reward all the way....he examines the business plan, current economic climate, and makes a risk assessment. If the potential ROI is sufficient, and the investment is within his level of tolerance for risk, it's a go. If not, they pass.

If there is opportunity, someone will be there to make the investment. It may not be a sound investment, or even a particularly smart business decision, but someone is willing to gamble on whether or not the business will succeed.



I thought "clandestine intelligence gathering activities for a foreign power" was akin to...oh, I dunno...SPYING. To imply that a spy (even an American citizen) is not an agent of a foreign power UNTIL they commit a federal crime is ridiculous. Wouldn't that mean that a spy isn't really a spy until he succeeds in providing intel to the enemy?

Maybe I'm misreading that whole thing, I dunno.....you seem much more up in arms about it than I am, and I still don't see why.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

I'd point out that it is still a good solution because it forces candidates to actually give a damn about places other than New York, Florida, Texas and California.

It comes down to motive.  Taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty?  Fine.  Taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty, and we think you have some nefarious motive?  You suddenly become classified as an enemy agent.

It worries me that the definitions are vague, and don't seem to require an actual law to be broken.


Yeah, I know that companies can issue more stock, and get loans using stock as collateral (think that's what killed Enron finally), and offer bonds that can be converted to stock.  There's a lot you can do to raise money once you're in the stock market.  It's just that tax cuts for rich people don't necessarily lead to an increase in investments.

A majority of the market's capital comes from mutual funds that have pension plans, IRAs, and 401(k)s as their main investors.  Individuals are (to a point) irrelevant.  And again, the amount of money in the market was never a problem.  The demand just wasn't there, and demand is driven by consumers, consumers who are usually a little further down on the food chain than the top 5%

Yeah, it would be a real shame if there was any reason for a Democrat in Utah or a Republican in Massachusetts to actually vote.  The winner take all nature of the electoral college makes all but a handful of swing states entirely irrelevant.  If you don't live in a swing state, your vote does not matter, period.

The typical small state fear of the popular vote is based on the extremely unrealistic scenario where almost everyone in a large state votes for one candidate.  By their nature, large states tend to be more fractured than small ones, because small states are more likely to have homoginized economies.  As a consequence of this, important swing states tend to be big states anyway.  This year, the great lakes/rust belt is mostly in play, as is Florida, whereas there is ZERO reason for either candidate to spend any time in the small Great Plains states.  On this view, the EC itself causes candidates to ignore small states.

Anyway, avoiding that derial, I think there may be a Constitutional problem with finishing up an election at a later date.  "The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."  Though I imagine Congress could do whatever they want and the Supreme Court would declare it a "political question" and not do anything.

Going back to the announcement of potential threats for a moment-




This story (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181978_robert14.html) exemplifies why depending on the grossly ignorant and uninformed public for early warnings is largely ineffective.

I've never run into any situation where law enforcement responds well when someone refuses to show ID. Just the opposite. If you won't show ID, they wonder why....maybe they just wanted to check for outstanding arrest warrants, which IME is pretty standard. Especially if someone called it in that he was "acting suspicious".

Racial profiling sucks....but people acting like idiots in response to it doesn't help matters either.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

I don't see any reason why law enforcement needs to spot check ID.  Feels too much like the "papers please" of the soviet union.

Not that we aren't barreling down that path anyway.  /shrugs

And the only reason you would have to not respond to a simple request for ID when they have been called by SOMEONE ELSE is because you may have something to hide. If you get beligerant with cops expect them to be assholes to you.

I dunno, I always thought photography students were relatively rare (compared to say, business or engineering types). I can understand that someone thought it looked suspicious that the guy was snapping photos and jotting down notes between them....even moreso if he was using a tripod.

My money says that most folks snapping pics at the locks are tourists....tourists don't normaly bust out the tripod and jot down shutter speeds. Someone probably freaked because a dark-skinned man was doing something out of the ordinary. Odds are they bought his story about being a student, and just wanted to check for arrest warrants....the complaint call would be enough to constitute probable cause, wouldn't it?

I mean, if he was willing to volunteer the notes (as it said he did), why was he so defensive about showing ID?

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

So you are fine with just walking down the street, and having to display your ID to the police?  Not showing ID on demand is belligerance?  What the hell country do you live in?

Nothing to hide?  That's great.

Using that logic, we can install cameras in your home, install tracking devices in your body, read all of your email, track every element of your life.  You have nothing to hide, right?

This is exactly the poor reasoning that has lead to the trampling of our civil rights.  The end result?  We aren't one bit safer than we were from the terrorists.  The government has more scrutiny into the personal lives of it's citizens.

OH, he was DARK SKINNED.

That automatically makes it ok to hassle him.

Sorry, carry on.

/sarcasm

See, I was leaning more toward the "he was doing something out of the ordinary".

If I walk into a bank wearing all black, wearing a ski mask, I would expect someone to think that is suspicious. By the same token, a guy busting out a tripod and making notes between shots at a tourist spot could be seen as suspicious.

The fact that he is dark skinned adds the element of racial profiling into the mix. Yeah, that part sucks, but it's not as if he was just singled out as "hey darkie, let's see your papers".

Although that's apparently the way he reacted to it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Yeah, Timothy McVeigh, he was REAL dark skinned, that boy was.

You do realize that a tripod is pretty much standard equipment for any hobbyist photographer, right? The place were he was seen is a wide open public area; I would be willing to bet that a good 25% of the people (bare minimum, especially on a sunny day- that attracts both locals and tourists) there at any given time have a camera on them. Probably fewer with tripods, but still- that is akin to interrogating people with picnic baskets since they might have a bomb inside.

If the Homeland Security folks are going to respond to every crackpot citizen report, they MUST make sure their people are better trained to handle this kind of situation. Instead of a gang of black-clad government thugs accosting someone, why not have one person observe him for 5 minutes?

This is exactly the kind of shit that terrifies me about the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge. They are a bigger threat to the American way of life than any terrorist group.

Agreed and the top reason not to vote for Bush in my book with the second being the posibillity of him being able to stock the supreme court.

See, you're trying to make this as if it was purely racial. I'm not denying that his skin tone probably made some idiot overreact....I'm just saying that what he was doing was enough to arouse at least a little suspiscion.

We're not talking about a guy with a disposable camera snapping a few pictures and being questioned because of his skin tone. We're talking about a guy setting up professional-type photography setup, snapping various pictures, and jotting in a notebook. If you visualize it in your head, pop a zoom or telephoto lens onto a decent camera, pop it onto a tripod, and it could very well look like something straight out of a James Bond flick.

Are we so fucking politically correct that it's inappropriate to say "whatcha doing there?" because the guy is dark skinned? I'd expect someone to ask "whatcha doin?" even if it were my grandma snapping the pics.

For the record, she's 4'9" and completely harmless.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

You just dont get it do you? Someone thought he was acting suspicious and called the cops. They came to investigate. If he shows his ID when asked and isnt a wanted felon you continue on your way. Usually with an apology.
You start mouthing off about how your rights are being trampled you need to expect them to be assholes because you are being one. There is nothing  on a standard drivers licence that is top secrect that isnt house in a computer someplace. The only reason you would have to not show it is you are hiding something. Quit making the world out to be this horribly unfair place where your poor little feelings get hurt. You either need to grow a fucking skin or move the fuck on.

I'd already read that story a couple of weeks back.  The guy's web page had a pretty good explanation about what happened:

http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/artiststatement/

Personally, I'm all for what the cops did.

1. The guy was taking pictures of the bridge.  Someone saw him and thought he looked suspiscious, and THEY called the cops.  It's not like the police saw him and went after him because they are racists.  Perhaps the people who alerted the police were racial profiling, but you can't fault the cops for checking it out.

2. The guy was asked by a security guard for ID.  He didn't present it.  Now, what do you expect at that point?  The guard didn't beat him up, but for all he knew the guy's ID could be that of a wanted terrorist.  The guard went and called the cops... perhaps a little overzealous, but better to err on the side of caution, eh?

3. The cops didn't beat him up, either.  They simply investigated what he was doing after getting tipped off that there might be a problem.  If he had shown his ID, they would have left a lot sooner.  Yeah, they did lie to him, which is perfectly legal as anyone who has watched Law & Order knows.  They didn't arrest him.  At any time he could have elected not to answer questions.

4. The guy's defense was that lots of other people take pictures of the same place; it's a tourist attraction.  True enough.  But the vast majority of those are using little digital cameras and they're in the crowds.  He went off to select spots by himself, with a tripod, and probably stood around a long time trying to get the right perspective and lighting.  Sorry, but that's suspicious.  Yes, it means professional photographers everywhere are going to have to endure more scrutiny from local law enforcement if they choose to photograph large public infrastructure... deal with it.

5. Can you imagine if the bridge HAD been blown up?  Then you have Congress release a report later, critizing how terrible the intelligence failure was in the Bush administration.  "They had a report of a guy who was photographing the bridge days before.  When asked for his ID, he refused, and THEY NEVER EVEN FOLLOWED UP THE INVESTIGATION!  They never bothered to find out who he was!"  And all you Democrats would be hopping up and down to blame Bush for not doing anything.

6. As I told another friend when we argued about this, I have no problem with "Papers, please" to show my ID.  My freedom of movement isn't being restricted, BECAUSE I'M NOT A TERRORIST.  When they start adding Jews to the list of people whom they won't let go wherever, then I'll start worrying.  So long as they're only looking for terrorists and felons and the like, I'm all for it.

Bruce

How very short sighted of you.

Yes, but this man's freedom of movement WAS restricted, and HE WASN'T A TERRORIST EITHER, FUCKWAD.

If the police ask you for ID, you have every right to find out WHY they are asking for it. It's a valid question, probably the first thing I'd be asking as I reached for my wallet. If they can't tell him why they want to see his ID, he doesn't have to show it to them.

The police do not have the right to just walk around and ask random motherfuckers for, as Soulflame put it, "PAPERS PLEASE!" If they are investigating suspicious activity, as they were, they have every right to ask the guy what's he's doing, but they also need to inform him of such. I mean, shit, how hard is it to say, "We've received reports of suspicious activity in the neighborhood, involving men matching your description taking photographs and jotting down notes."

How fucking hard is that? Just because you think the law gives you the right to act like a jack-booted thug, doesn't mean you have to ACT like a jack-booted thug. "Protect and Serve" not "Harrass and Pacify."

Fuck that. I don't want to 'deal with it'. I shouldn't have to 'deal with it.' I am not interested in trading in my civil rights for the warm cozy feeling that the government is acting in my best interests (when there is all sorts of evidence to the contrary). This is a slippery slope that I am afraid we are already starting down. Just 'dealing with it' and not standing up for ourselves will lead to bad, bad things.

Some of you want the government to be a security blanket.

I stopped needing a security blanket a long time ago.

This kid is determined to think that it's all about people harrassing him because of his race. In several cases, he even asks if he is legally obligated to comply before refusing to show ID.

Time and time again, he fucks with the authorities for even questioning him...and he wonders why they take it as far they legally can. Yet, despite all of it, he figures that the only possible reason he was questioned at all is the color of his skin.

Fuckin clown.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

It's pretty simple, actually. Don't carry ID when you're not operating a motor vehicle. I won't surrender ID without good cause, because I don't go about breaking the law. I won't be a dick, but the officer better have a good reason, and "because I said so" isn't a good one imo.

No, it wasn't.  He wasn't under arrest.  He was free to walk away at any time... of course, THEN he would have been arrested, and for good reason.



But he knew why.  This was not the point of contention.  The point was he didn't think he should have to show his ID.  You want your rights protected?  You say you've got a lawyer and to have him answer all questions.  Of course, then you'll get arrested and find out, indeed, they are free to take your ID from you anyway.



It wasn't random.  And furthermore, they do indeed have the right to ask random motherfuckers for ID, depending on circumstance.  If you don't like it, take 'em to court.



Er, did you read the link I gave?  He was informed, though not to the degree you write.

Bruce

You aren't trading in your civil rights.  Where under the Constitution does it say that you have a right not to be asked for your ID by the police if you are reported to them as suspiciously photographing a bridge during a period when they have reason to think said bridge is a likely terrorist target?

Bruce

 Let me get this straight.  The police stop you.  If you walk away, you get arrested.  This does not restrict your movement.  GG Mr. Orwell.

Indeed.  If you're being questioned by police, you really only have thave two good choices:

1. Cooperate politely.  You've got nothing to hide and they are just trying to do their job.  You endure some questioning so you can satisfy them.
2. Tell them sorry, but you don't want to talk to them, and that you've got a lawyer.  They either arrest you or they don't.

And if you get arrested, THEN get a lawyer and do what he tells you to.

This guy tried a third option, which was to not cooperate and ask as suspiciously as possible.  And he got upset because they kept questioning him.  If he thought he was being unfairly targeted and shouldn't have to ask these questions, then he should have shut up and gotten a lawyer.  You know what happens then?  All questioning would have ceased.  He would have either been arrested, or let go.

Bruce

Except in Mr. Orwell's world, there's no appeal.  In OUR world, if the police REALLY arrested you without good reason, it would get thrown out, they'd get punished, and you'd get compensated.

But that wouldn't have happened in this case, because any judge would have said the guy was stopped reasonably... and he was.

Bruce

Right.  His freedom of movement was restricted.  Exactly the opposite of what you said.  I was referring to the use of language in Orwell's state, not its judicial structure.  As in "you are free to walk but we will arrest you if you do" which constitutes "freedom" in both Orwell-land and SirBruce-land.

But see, in our world, under the laws we have written, the man is not obliged to give out his ID if he doesn't want to, UNLESS HE IS CHARGED.

As per the article:



They can ask, he can say no. They didn't like him saying no, so they intimidated him by tossing out terrorist theories and lecturing him on 9/11. Had they been a bit less belligerent, this wouldn't be an issue.

And if he'd been arrested under a terrorism investigation, the Patriot Act says he can be detained as long as they want, with no charges filed, and he can't do a goddamn thing about it.

You think that's right? I'll be a happy motherfucker when they turn your furry ass into a pincushion for being a total gibbering malfunctioning sexual deviant.

In whose world again?

Sounded to me from the piece (the one the kid wrote himself) that he felt violated and unfairly persecuted the moment the cops knocked on his fucking door. His paranoia seemed to be that the police were going to start some sort of secret file on him, and that *heaven forbid* they do a background check on him.

Yknow, with his name, they may have been able to verify his status as a student...maybe even confirm that he was in a photography class. They also could have checked if he was on a terror watch list, had any outstanding arrest warrants, parking tickets, etc. Moreover, they could have confirmed his status as an American citizen, or verified the status of his Visa in the event that he was not a citizen.

I seem to recall a story about a pair of Middle Eastern guys going to flight school back around 2000-2001 or so. Some folks thought it was odd that they expected to be trained to fly commercial jets right off the bat, and that one of the students was noticably disinterested in any instruction related to take-off or landing.

As it turned out, nobody did much of anything....the two Middle Eastern guys, though doing something suspcious, weren't doing anything illegal. That is, until they helped hijack some commercial flights and fly them into the WTC on 9/11. IIRC, at least one had an expired visa, and both were on terrorist watch lists.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

By the way, I'd just like to add that even though Bruce appears to agree with me, I think some of the stuff he is spewing is moronic, even by his standards.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

No, you're the one who is confused.  The police are "free" to arrest you ANY time already.  It's just that much of the time, it would be illegal for them to do so.  Nevertheless, were you to resist, you'd probably still get arrested, or worse, shot.

In EverywhereIntelligentLand, "freedom of movement" means that generally speaking the government doesn't stop you going to another non-government place without cause.  Checking your ID doesn't stop you.  Neither does arresting you, temporarily, because you don't show your ID.  Never letting you go there, or arresting you and not letting you go after establishing your ID, would be resticting your freedom of movement.

Bruce

Yes, that's one legal opinion.  What's your point?  Whether or not he was legally obliged to give his ID isn't the issue... the issue is whether or not the police were justified in asking for his ID, and investigating him further when he refused.



He was being belligerent, as his own testimony describes.  As for them "intimidating" him, yes, they did.  Guess what?  That's legal.  They can even lie to him.  They could tell him all sorts of shit to get him to cooperate.  That doesn't mean they could then DO it if he still refused, or if they did it, that they wouldn't get punished for an illegal action.

This is why you should have a lawyer... because they can deal with this, instead of you, and they know your rights better than you do.
 


And this is a false liberal myth.

Bruce

Ditto.

Bruce

Ahh, going back to your old form. Bravo.  

Good to know things don't change much.

But every day I hope that Bruce has changed his avatar. He looks like a fucking serial killer.

Spoken like a person who has never read the Patriot act. Please stop buying what you are told and investigate for yourself.

Hi there.  Eurofag with no right to comment on American politics here !  Just thought I'd nip in to this thread to say what a sterling job Dark Vengeance, Dark Dryad and Sir Bruce are doing being complete and total fucking morons.

Good job guys, things will get to the police state soon and then you can sit back and relax with a smug feeling of a job well done.

I particularly love the irony of the argument - i'f you want to fight the cops, just lawyer up'.  That almost beats the irony of DV and Bruce calling EACH OTHER morons.

Stunning stuff.

Now you only need new sheets eh bed-wetter.

I have.  Please feel free to cite the section you think says what you think it says, along with an explanation as to how this was or was not modified by the recent Supreme Court ruling.  Hint: Check out section 412(a).

Bruce

Except the law says different hammy.



And strangely enough that is legal. I also give you a Terry stop...



Both laws have been in existance well before 9/11, Bush, Homeland Security, etc etc so dont even try and blame them for it.

Well, the ACLU is just quibbling about whether or not the request was indeed "reasonable" in the situation described; e.g. someone photographing a bridge with a tripod camera, by themselves, taking notes, when said bridge is a suspected terrorist target.

My point was simply that the police were also free to lie to him in order to get him to cooperate.

Bruce

No Eurofag we simply know what the law says while people who feel put upon by such an oppressive society do nothing about it but bitch and moan. My points is simply if you dont abide by our current laws then get stuffed if you do nothing to change them. All clear now? Hope so.

Yeah, I'm obviously way off base thinking that ANYONE was being reasonable in thinking that a guy photographing a bridge for an hour, in the rain, using high-end equipment, and making notes looked suspicious. Oh, and let's recall this was the third time he had shown up to take pictures there in about a month. They must all be racists, who only called it in because he was a darkie.

The guy was too stupid to know when to leave well enough alone. After the cops leave his house, he decides to snap pictures of them walking to their cars. When the guard at the locks is walking away, he again snaps pictures of them. He interrupts the agent multiple times to say "yeah I know about 9/11" when shutting the hell up would have been the play of the day. When the special agent is walking to his car, he marches right up after him to ask for a business card.

Does he have a right to do those things? Absolutely. But it was fucking stupid. Act like a dick, piss off the authorities, and they are going to fuck with you as much as they can within the law. That's just common sense.

First of all, he acts as if nobody had any reason or right to even question his activity, or scrutinize it beyond "oh, well Im a photography student, heres my notes....you don't know what these notes mean, so here let me translate them into laymans terms for you. See? Perfectly harmless".

Second, the automatic assumption (not a rare one among some minorities either) is that he is being singled out simply because of race. I'd think it was a bit odd for anyone to be doing that, at least enough to ask "whatcha doin?". Fuck, when describing the 2nd incident, as soon as SPD arrives with Homeland secuirty, he says he had "a flashback to Rodney King". He even concedes the point that he "just wanted someone to say it to [his] face"...and nothing else even seems to enter his mind.

Third, he reacts to the authorities as if they are a single faceless entity. By the time the security guard approaches him, he's taking a "here comes the harrassment again" attitude, when the guard wasn't even involved in the first incident (a month earlier), nor was the kid questioned at the scene. He acts with shock and dismay that uniformed police officers carry guns, that a security guard would have a german shepherd, that someone would flash a badge, that federal agents happen to be wearing black suits, or that police officers/security guards would take an authoritative tone.

Fourth, he takes an attitude and gets very emotional, doing some shit that would be sure to piss the cops off....such asking why "non-brown tourists" weren't being investigated (maybe because nobody called about them)....even twice pointing out a man with an easel and canvas (because, yknow, a guy painting a picture is really the same, right?). Now this is AFTER he has already voluntarily given them his ID....he continues to argue, argue, and argue some more, just for the sake of doing so. Look kid, you ALREADY gave them your ID, STFU, let them finish, get the hell out of there, then get the police report and call a lawyer if you think they're doing something illegal.

On multiple occasions, his own actions added fuel to the fire. Even after he concedes that he understands that they need to investigate all calls, he goes on to demand "some real accountability". He just can't leave it alone and walk away, which prompts THE ENTIRE CONFRONTATION WITH THE SPECIAL AGENT.

Had he simply politely refused to show ID, took whatever consequences came of that, and then hired a lawyer to sue the SPD, I'd say he was right on the money. But he didn't. He acted like a moron, and turned a reasonable "whatcha doin?" into a giant fucking production. Well within his rights, but fucking stupid nonetheless.

But yeah, this guy did everything right, and authorities are all evil racists, and I'm a moron for having any opinion to the contrary, right?

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Thank you

Hyperbole much? I'll tell you what. I'll give the above opinoin credence the day Mr. Asshat (Michael Moore) gets arrested for Subversion or Violating the Standards and Civil Code of the Party. Until then, um, yeah thanks for playing.

I think that Jon Stewart would get arrested way before Michael Moore.  Moore succeeds only in making the left look stupid.  Stewart makes everyone he lampoons look stupid.

As to whether the photographer was out of line or not, eh.  The attitude of DD and DV call to mind a Heinlein quote.  In fact, here's THREE that I feel apply.

"In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'"

"Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny."

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."

How they apply is an exercise left to the reader.

This thread has gotten terribly off the track. Can we get back to the actual topic?

Soulflame are teh stupid.

This thread is rife with conspiracy theories and villianization. I'm not sure why Moore is somehow any different.

Because our theories are free and net us nothing.

The real topic is, "We need Bush and company out of office four years ago."

I'd be happy with Cheney dropping off the ticket due to "health problems" which is not an unreal possibility. With him gone, I'm a little more secure in the administration.

If Bush would ditch Cheney and Ashcroft, tell the religious right to go fuck itself, and embrace financial conservatism, I still wouldn't vote for him.  I'm not very appreciative of silver spoon in mouth life long failures that have leaned on image consultants to get where they are.

Edit:  I'm no fan of Kerry either, for some of the same reasons.

Newsflash, poor people don't run for the country's highest office. I don't think you are ever going a choice that's not between two rich jackasses. Or do you prefer the self-made rich jackass? The guy who pulled his way up by his bootstraps to the nation's capital? Smart hillbillies don't make it that far.





Except Carter...

Don't forget Donny Rumsfeld while we're rooting out the evildoers in the administration.

(http://www.laken.com/images/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)

Forget Ohio, Bush is fucked here. The economy is completely in the shitter and job adds in the paper are down to about half a page during the week. Northern Ohio at least, is a sea of Kerry bumper stickers and yard signs. I've never, ever seen presidential election crap out as early or as thick as I've seen it now. And there isn't even a whisper of support for Bush. Even the snake-charming, speaks-in-tongues Baptists at work are voting against Bush. Not necessarily for Kerry, they just want bush to be gone.

Couldn't tell you about Columbus though, it's full of idiot hillbilly Jesus freaks who moved there from shitholes Ozark states during the 90's because jobs were plentiful.

More like tied...

The state of Ohio remains a key battleground in the 2004 United States presidential election, according to a poll by Zogby Interactive published in the Wall Street Journal Online. 48.6 per cent of respondents would vote for prospective Democratic nominee John Kerry, while 47.9 per cent would support Republican incumbent George W. Bush.
Source: Zogby Interactive / The Wall Street Journal Online Methodology: Online interviews to 1,321 Ohio voters, conducted from Jul. 6 to Jul. 10, 2004. Margin of error is 2.7 per cent.

The Wall Street Journal should probably stop conducting their surveys at the local country club.

It's a Zogby poll, you moron.  Only the most respected and accurate poll of them all.

Hey Riggswolfe, found that section of the Patriot Act yet?  No?  Anyone else?  Don't you feel stupid that you bought into a liberal lie again?

Bruce

Yes, well I can see how something as secure and hijinx-proof as an internet poll is bound to be way more accurate than the observations of someone actually living in the area who's involved in not only politics but several non-partisan community and religious groups that span a wide variety of economic, social, and poliical ranges.

Zogby Interactive's webpoll can say whatever the hell it wants, but anyone expecting an even 40% support for Bush here in North Ohio is in for a rude awakening. I might be wrong though because webpolls are nearly as accurate as everything else on the intarweb.

It's amazing to see what mental hoops people will force themselves to jump through to marginalize something that doesn't mesh with their personal world view.

The poll was of Ohio voters, so there's a good chance most of them live in the area.  Yes, it was an Internet poll... conducted with scientific methodology by Zogby, the most respected of all pollsters.  They conducted online interviews of 1,321 voters... I don't see any evidence of some massive Internet hijinx there.

Your level of personal experience is pretty much irrelevant.  If you were that "plugged in" so that you always knew the pulse of Ohio, the political establishment would be paying you for your expert advice and analysis.  And even of those that proclaim to do that professionally are frequently wrong.  Wherever did you get your amazing psychic infallibility?

If you don't believe Zogby, here's a non-online poll by Rasmussen from June that puts it at Bush 46, Kerry 42, margin of error 4%:
http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=3380

Hell, even you know you're so full of shit that you're already trying to backpedal out of it by claiming you only speak for NORTHERN Ohio.  That way if you're wrong, hey, it must have been Southern Ohio that broke heavily for Bush, right?

Bruce

Says who? You? I call bullshit. Prove they're the most respected and accurate pollsters. Lets see some numbers. Because quite frankly, my personal poll had more participants and I'll lay money down that it covered a wider voter base than Zogby's did. In fact, lets make a bet. If I can show that in the simple course of talking with people at work, school, clubs, church, and organizations I got a more accurate poll and with more people than Zogby, you never ever come here or Corpnews again. Ever.


Yes, scepticism of an internet poll is a pretty big "mental hoop". There's not even a need to explain why putting any faith in an internet poll makes you a total fucking tool.


Veried that they actually lived in Ohio how? Oh, there was a checkbox. Tamper proof! Given that the GOP has set up "Republicans for Nader" to burgle votes from Kerry, I don't see why fudging something like a stupid internet poll so their tool followers can use it in internet arguements. Republican actions reek of last minute despiration.


So then why would I believe anything that any of them say, including polls. After all, polls are as full of shit as anything else. Even more reason to go with my own personal experience.


By involving myself in a lifestyle that's not primarily geared around tracking subscriptions to online games and posting trolls on message boards where I'm universally hated to the point where I get banned and have to wait for the admin to restart the message board and forget to reban me so I can post again. Despair Bruce, your lifestyle is sad. Have you even ever touched a girl who isn't a floorwhore at E3?


No shitfag, it's not "backpedaling", it's "adding a qualifier". I live in Northern Ohio, and I'm involved in things that go on in Northern Ohio. I said Northern Ohio in my first post too you fucking asshole. Who knows what's going on in places like Cincinnati, which is really just North Kentucky, or Columbus, which is so full of immigrated religious fanatics from shithole hillbilliy states that the freeways are lined with churches with neon lights. Last time I drove on I70 it looked like Vegas - but Vegas for Jesus. People south of Stark county could be voting for a space alien and I wouldn't have a clue.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=zogby+%22most+accurate%22



Who is talking about faith?  You're the one claiming the poll is NOT accurate, because the "intraweb" is involved.  The problem is you've fixated on a notion of "internet poll" which probably features thousands of random anonymous people clicking on web surveys over and over again.  This is not how Zogby Interactive polls are conducted.  Each person is interviewed and given a password to access the poll which only works once.



Thank you for providing some prime examples of the "mental hoops" I was talking about.



False logic.  You're equating "those" with "pollsters", which I did not do.  Polls are indeed more reliable than individual political consultants who use their "plugged in" knowledge.  This is what I was equating you to... someone using their personal knowledge and experience to predict how people will vote vs. tried and tested scientific methodology.  Polls are actually LESS full of shit as anything else.  They are still subject to error, of course, and only provide a momentary snapshot of opinion, which can move quite quickly.



Why, I do believe I've touched a nerve.  Must have been infuriating to be shown up by such a loser, eh?



Which is backpedalling.  Your earlier statement had no such qualifier, and you've yet to admit straight out that what you initially said does NOT apply to all of Ohio.



So you now admit that Bush could still win Ohio, since you don't know how Southern Ohio will vote?

I see you totally ignored that other polls also showed that Ohio is indeed close for Bush.

Bruce

Now that's why we call it Sirbrucing.

Yeah, because, yknow....we REALLY NEEDED A HUGE DICKWAVING CONTEST ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF POLLS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ELECTION IS STILL TOO CLOSE TO CALL AT THIS POINT.

Man, if you guys get paid to be this stupid, you deserve a raise.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Just to be clear, I've never claimed it was fair to call it anything other than close, although I do think Bush is going to win in the end.  I was simply challenging the notion that Ohio wasn't close, and that a Zogby Interactive poll should be disbelieved in favor of someone else's personal experience in the state.

Personally I think Florida will be the deciding state once again.

Bruce

So you say, but I think the reason Kerry's been smiling lately isn't entirely PR related.

Wouldn't that be nice? The deciding state being run by the brother of one of the candidates. Even Mr. Burns thinks that's nifty.

Well, the latest Zogby poll has Kerry ahead in Florida now by over 6 and a half points; a 10 point swing away from Bush.  So no, it's not all that nice. :)

Bruce

At least if Kerry wins, we'll have another republican president.

http://69.93.11.34/mirror.html

Bruce

Macromedia should really get a nobel prize one of these days.

Did Bruce just agree with me?

I think I need to shower.  Again.

/shivers

MUST.  CLEANSE.

Yeah I know the feeling.

Bleh.  Normally I'd observe any sampling based on a participant's internet access is already heavily biased.  But I suspect there is high correlation of people without net access to people who don't vote.