China Turns it;s back on communism

[Oblivion437]

I'm not worried. As long as the Germans are left to themselves, I'm okay. I'll move to Germany, drink Lager, and eat schnitzle.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by WillowIX: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Well, one thing IS going to change... in less than 15 years China will dominate the world economy.

Well if they take over the beer market you won´t hold a grudge against them won´t you? [img]tongue.gif[/img] And I think Marx is already turning in his grave in regards to the Chinese government [/QUOTE]I would if that means i have to go all the way to China to get a friggin beer. [/QUOTE]Naah they´d probably specail export just for you being their No1 consumer [img]tongue.gif[/img] But for now I guess you´ll have to hop on to that bear of yours and start travelling [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: There is absolutely no reasonable comparison that can be made between China and "Bush and the Republicans".

A very reasonable comparison can be made,
Depriving people of the right to vote, is the act of a tyrant, plain and simple.

In Tallahassee, hundreds of registered black voters were turned away because, despite carrying valid voter registration cards, they did not appear on the voter registration rolls at the precincts. Hundreds more were harassed and stopped by Highway Patrol officers who set up inspection road blocks near polling places in black voting precincts. The Highway Patrol acknowledges this occurred, but say that it was a random placement of routine vehicle inspections which just happened to be near black polling places on election day ... just a coincidence in Jeb Bush's state? The number of formal complaints filed is in the hundreds ... and this is likely just a fractional tip of the iceberg compared to the thousands who were harassed and intimidated but didn't want to go through the hassle of filing formal claims. We've all heard of "Driving While Black" and racial profiling, but Jeb Bush and his jack-booted Florida thugs bring us the new crime of "Voting While Black." And they wonder why 92% of the blacks didn't want to vote for someone named "Bush."
Since the election, the extent of this voter obstruction has become even more clear. The Los Angeles Times (5-21-01), including previous reports in The Nation and their own investigation, reports that many voters had their names removed from the voter rolls before the election in an effort to remove "convicted felons" and deceased voters from the rolls, even though thousands of those deleted had never been convicted of anything, were very much alive, and had registered properly. While it cannot be known who any individual voter would have voted for, a large, disproportionate number of those removed from the rolls were African Americans, from a population known to be voting in large numbers for Democrats in a state where the chief election officers, Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, had pledged to deliver the election for "Dubya."
One such voter, Sandylynn Williams, age 34, a Black Tampa resident and Gore supporter, had voted in every election since she was 18. She had recently passed a government background check for her job with a military contractor. She was not a felon, but was not allowed to vote in the November presidential election because her name appeared on an erroneous list of "felons." Election officials restored her right to vote just ten days after the election, with an apology. The timing of this maneuver, the targeting of Black voters, and its effect in preventing thousands of Gore votes in a close election offer conclusive evidence of an election stolen by election authorities committed to delivering their state to Dubya, by hook ... or by CROOK.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: If you look at the American Constitution you'll see Bush was elected to the presidency.

No He wasn't.

"Elections are not won by those who cast the votes, but those who count them."
-Josef Stalin

The chief executive officer of the state, the governor, and ultimate overseer of election statutes, was Jeb Bush, younger brother of the candidate. It is relevant to note that the exit polling data from Voter News Service, based on strategically-placed questioning of large numbers of actual voters who just voted, has an incredible record of historical accuracy. If their data shows the election to be excessively close (as in New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin) they say it is "too close to call." Their record is so impressive and reliable that Dan Rather (using their numbers) said that "if we call a state, you can put it in the bank." The data reflecting the intended votes in Florida showed that it was close, but that Gore was the clear winner, which is why the state was called for him early on, and consistent with the calculations by the Miami Herald cited previously. Voter News Service and the networks have been criticized for this rare "mistake" but based on the facts, it appears that Voter News Service and the networks were not wrong at all. When the state was first called for Gore, Jeb Bush and his staff objected, saying they knew there were more votes for Dubya. How did they know that? The actual votes had not been counted yet! If Jeb Bush "knew" something, it could only have been because he "knew" he could control the delivery of enough votes to make the difference. This is the same governor who had previously VETOED a voter education measure passed by his own Republican legislature ... and then joined the chorus of those critical of senior citizen or inexperienced voters who were confused by ballots that clearly violated legal requirements.

The secretary of state, Kathleen Harris, with immediate responsibility for oversight of election procedures, was a partisan Republican loyal to Jeb Bush and a state co-chair of the Bush campaign, who repeatedly disregarded election statutes and judicial decisions made prior to the election to make sure that votes would never be counted if they came from areas that would likely be recorded for Gore.

The state legislature, which claimed the right to simply disregard the election count and disenfranchise voters if their votes were actually counted showing Gore as the winner, was controlled by Republicans in both houses. Their absurd claim for this tyrannical disregard of voters, which certainly would have been challenged if implemented, was from Article II section I of the U.S. Constitution which states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." It is important to note that this provision does not say they will choose the electors, but that they will direct the manner of such choosing. Subsequent enabling legislation specified that such procedures must be those in place prior to the election. They could have directed a manner of their own choosing of electors if they had done so prior to the election. However the method they had directed prior to the election date was one of direct election by voters. They did NOT have the right, after the election, to change this manner they had directed for the choosing of electors. Claiming such power was purely an exercise in Republican dictatorship.

The U.S. Supreme Court was made up of seven judges appointed by Republicans. Of these, two had clear familial conflicts of interest which should have required their recusal, and two had expressed conditions of bias which were likely not recusable, but which demonstrated a lack of judicial impartiality.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: He was elected by the Electoral College just like every other president. He wasn't the first, second, or even third president to lose the popular vote while winning the Electoral College. He was the fourth, so this kind of thing happens nearly 10% of the time in presidential elections.

As far as the electoral college system in concerned, The Electoral College system fails to accurately reflect the will of the people. Over-representation of rural states is one of the unacceptable facts of the Electoral College. This occurs because the population has had a dramatic shift since the Electoral College was written and no longer operates as it should. The numbers of Electors for each state is determined by the number of House members it has. The population determines the number of House members. To this, the Stateâs Senate members are added. Each state has two members regardless of the stateâs population. This creates an unfair voting advantage for rural states. "The result is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdictions of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other States listed (Jackson County)." The Electoral College systematically limits our choices for President. It is extremely difficult for independent or third party candidates to compete in the Electoral College because of the construct that awards all of the states votes to the candidate who wins a majority of the votes within a state. Furthermore, with the current system, an independent or third party candidate could receive 25% of the national vote and not receive one single Electoral vote. The Electoral College effectively and totally disregards the support this candidate received and certainly thwarts the will of the people. "By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two party system, discourages third party or independent candidates, and thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate (Kimberling)."

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: There is absolutely no reasonable comparison that can be made between China and "Bush and the Republicans".

A very reasonable comparison can be made,
Depriving people of the right to vote, is the act of a tyrant, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]No it can't because no tyrant deprived anyone of the right to vote in Florida. Neither George Bush, nor his brother Jeb had the power to stop anyone from voting.

I do think it's interesting that you fail to mention the hundreds and hundreds of legally cast absentee ballets that the Democrates tried to avoid counting. Votes the Democrates tried to block while steadily crying that "all" votes should be counted.

I also remember the Democrates only wanting to recount heavily Democratic counties in Florida. That doesn't sound very fair. What about the African-American voters serving in the military overseas? Don't they count? Isn't one of those blocked votes as important as someone would supposedly was blocked from the polls? Or are they not as important because, in general, military absentee ballets historically lean towards the Republicans?

Even today Al Gore admits they should have gone for the full state recount from the beginning. The Democrates tried to only recount those counties they thought would be advantageous to them, and by doing so, they wasted precious time and shot themselves in the foot.

I love that you mention Ms. Harris, but none of the high ranking Florida Democratic officials who were towing their parties line just as surely as she was towing hers. You also say the US Supreme Court was Republican biased, but don't mention the fact the the Florida Supreme Court was biased toward the Democrates. I'll also mention that, as the Governor of the state, Jeb Bush said he would not take an active part in the process, and he didn't. In the end, all he did was sign the final document, which is his job.

The election in Florida would have been no more or less sinister if Al Gore had ended up winning the court battles. It was a stupid screw up, on a number of levels, that should not have happened, but it wasn't a Bush conspiracy. That's just so lame. Isn't that Jeb was the Florida governor a little too simple of an excuse for Democrates?

VNS exit polls are extremely accurate? Wrong! You may want to take a second look at Voter News Service. Exit polling data is not as good as once thought, and they abandoned the process entirely this year because it IS unreliable. Agencies like this predicting outcomes, and the media broadcasting the information before the polls in a state are closed were just as much of a problem as anything else in Election 2000.

If you don't like the Electoral College, you'll have to have your representative offer an ammendment because whether or not you like it, and whether or not you think it's fair, it's just as important and enforceable a part of the Constitution as your right to free speach. BTW, the reason for the electoral college was to insure that rural votes do carry weight. Without the electoral college you'd never see a president from outside the Northeast.

[ 11-10-2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

My 2C on the Florida vote is that if you are too stupid to properly fillout the ballot then you probably shouldnt vote. When the ballot says "Punch completely out" and people CIRCLE their choice then they are too stupid to vote. THis site has an example of how even 6 yr old childen could cast a vote in the prescribed manner--> http://www.fadetoblack.com/floriduh/

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: No it can't because no tyrant deprived anyone of the right to vote in Florida. Neither George Bush, nor his brother Jeb had the power to stop anyone from voting.

They did It in a rather underhand Way,
Did you not see there, About black people being depreived of their right to vote, In case you failed to read it, Here is is again:

"The Los Angeles Times (5-21-01), including previous reports in The Nation and their own investigation, reports that many voters had their names removed from the voter rolls before the election in an effort to remove "convicted felons" and deceased voters from the rolls, even though thousands of those deleted had never been convicted of anything, were very much alive, and had registered properly. While it cannot be known who any individual voter would have voted for, a large, disproportionate number of those removed from the rolls were African Americans, from a population known to be voting in large numbers for Democrats in a state where the chief election officers, Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, had pledged to deliver the election for "Dubya."

One such voter, Sandylynn Williams, age 34, a Black Tampa resident and Gore supporter, had voted in every election since she was 18. She had recently passed a government background check for her job with a military contractor. She was not a felon, but was not allowed to vote in the November presidential election because her name appeared on an erroneous list of "felons." Election officials restored her right to vote just ten days after the election, with an apology. The timing of this maneuver, the targeting of Black voters, and its effect in preventing thousands of Gore votes in a close election offer conclusive evidence of an election stolen by election authorities committed to delivering their state to Dubya, by hook ... or by CROOK."

"Stupid White Men" is also Excellent on this subject. A book Well Worth reading.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I do think it's interesting that you fail to mention the hundreds and hundreds of legally cast absentee ballets that the Democrates tried to avoid counting. Votes the Democrates tried to block while steadily crying that "all" votes should be counted. I also remember the Democrates only wanting to recount heavily Democratic counties in Florida. That doesn't sound very fair. What about the African-American voters serving in the military overseas? Don't they count? Isn't one of those blocked votes as important as someone would supposedly was blocked from the polls? Or are they not as important because, in general, military absentee ballets historically lean towards the Republicans? Even today Al Gore admits they should have gone for the full state recount from the beginning. The Democrates tried to only recount those counties they thought would be advantageous to them, and by doing so, they wasted precious time and shot themselves in the foot.

Gore and the Democrats did not try to block those votes from being counted and, in fact, actively campaigned for full inclusion. Gore and Liebermann both spoke out in favor of including all such ballots, even if it required flexibility with official Florida voting regulations (after all Gore is the one who is actually a Vietnam veteran). Furthermore, the Florida state Attorney General, Bob Butterworth, a Gore elector and co-chair of the Gore campaign, issued an OFFICIAL Attorney General opinion stating that all such ballots should and could be officially included. However, the final decision was left with individual county canvassing boards and many of them who were Republicans did not include such ballots because they did not want to establish a precedent of including additional vote counts or allowing any flexibility in determining voter intent. Still, it is Gore and the Democrats who get tagged unfairly with the charge of blocking military votes that were actually obstructed by Republicans.
In Seminole and Martin Counties, Republican partisans were granted preferential access that was NOT equally offered to Democratic officials, to complete missing information from absentee ballot applications. The same Republicans who talk that senior citizens should get no consideration whatsoever in having their intended votes count if they can't follow every single little rule (even if it is an illegal ballot and chad buildup they have no control over), talked about "technicalities" when it is pointed out that Florida law is explicit that only the voter or an immediate family member can complete certain pieces of information. In Seminole County, after the improper applications had been rejected, unauthorized outsiders from a specific political party were invited to come and complete the applications, and were provided illegal unsupervised access. In Martin County, Republican partisans were actually allowed to take the applications off premises. These are hardly "technicalities." More importantly, the fact that the Democratic Party was given no equivalent invitation, and hundreds of incomplete Democrat applications were simply tossed in the trash, means that this is a clear violation of equal protection of the laws. The only recourse, under Florida law (and which was done in the 1997 Miami mayor's race) is to void all absentee ballots (since after the votes have been processed it is no longer possible to separate the tampered applications from the valid ones.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I love that you mention Ms. Harris, but none of the high ranking Florida Democratic officials who were towing their parties line just as surely as she was towing hers. You also say the US Supreme Court was Republican biased, but don't mention the fact the the Florida Supreme Court was biased toward the Democrates. I'll also mention that, as the Governor of the state, Jeb Bush said he would not take an active part in the process, and he didn't. In the end, all he did was sign the final document, which is his job.

It doesn't matter what the democrats did or didn't do, I care little for them.
But It is important to note the blatant and institutionalised chicanery in American politics.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: The election in Florida would have been no more or less sinister if Al Gore had ended up winning the court battles. It was a stupid screw up, on a number of levels, that should not have happened, but it wasn't a Bush conspiracy. That's just so lame. Isn't that Jeb was the Florida governor a little too simple of an excuse for Democrates? VNS exit polls are extremely accurate? Wrong! You may want to take a second look at Voter News Service. Exit polling data is not as good as once thought, and they abandoned the process entirely this year because it IS unreliable. Agencies like this predicting outcomes, and the media broadcasting the information before the polls in a state are closed were just as much of a problem as anything else in Election 2000.

Democrats or republicans?
I care little for either.
They’re both mirror images of Corruption and the Rule of The Rich.
However have you looked at the evidence of corruption in the US supreme court?

Two of the justices had clear conflicts of interest involving immediate family members which, by all standards of judicial ethics, should have required that they recuse themselves from the current case. Antonin Scalia has two sons who are working as lawyers: one is a partner of Ted Olson, who represented Bush in his federal appeals and argued the case before the Supreme Court (and Scalia, father of his partner), and the other who works for the law firm that was representing Bush's interests in the Florida state courts. These were the only two law firms representing Bush in the post-campaign strategies, and Scalia had a son working for each firm -- immediate family members representing a clear conflict of interest. Clarence Thomas' wife Virginia was working for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative "think tank" which was handling screening of applicants for jobs in a potential Bush administration. Again, an immediate family member (wife) working directly for one of the litigants and therefore representing a clear conflict of interest. If these two justices had properly recused themselves the vote would have been different and the vote count in Florida as required by law would not have been stopped.
In addition to the outright conflicts of Scalia and Thomas, two additional justices had expressed reasons for bias that tainted any sudden departure from their traditional positions on states' rights and equal protection. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had both indicated their desire to retire and be replaced by a Republican president. In fact, on election night, O'Connor and her husband were at a party. When Florida was initially called for Gore, she said, "This is terrible!" and with an expression of distress wandered off to get some food as her husband explained that she wanted to retire and be replaced by a Republican, which would not be possible if Gore won, which would be likely if Florida were called for Gore. In other words, not realizing that the case would be coming to her desk within a few weeks, she was commenting on a matter that would soon be brought to her for judgment. She expressed a specific desire for Bush to win, and then (like Rehnquist) violated long-held views on states' rights and equal protection to make sure he did. While this does not rise to the level required for recusal (since everyone is entitled to vote for a candidate and hold political opinions), it was a clear indication of non-objective bias, especially in light of their departure from previous positions. In order to at least reduce the taint of politicizing the judicial process with which Rehnquist and O'Connor are now stained, they must at the very least agree that they will not retire during the current term, but if Dubya can win on his own in a clean victory in 2004, then they can retire and be replaced by a Republican.

Evidence of the corruption can be further verified in the payback: within the first six months of his illegitimate presidence, Dubya appointed Eugene Scalia (son of Antonin Scalia) to be the Labor Department's top lawyer, and Janet Rehnquist, daughter of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as inspector general at the Health and Human Services Department.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: If you don't like the Electoral College, you'll have to have your representative offer an ammendment because whether or not you like it, and whether or not you think it's fair, it's just as important and enforceable a part of the Constitution as your right to free speach. BTW, the reason for the electoral college was to insure that rural votes do carry weight. Without the electoral college you'd never see a president from outside the Northeast.[/QB]

Could you please explain to me, how making someone’s vote count for more than someone else’s is fair or democratic?
(I don't live in America BTW)

"The result is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdictions of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other States listed (Jackson County)."

Well big E [img]smile.gif[/img] Keep voting, get out there and work for the change you want to see happen. THere's lots of groups trying to get rid of the idea of electoral college.

Originally posted by MagiK: Well big E [img]smile.gif[/img] Keep voting, get out there and work for the change you want to see happen. THere's lots of groups trying to get rid of the idea of electoral college.

As I said, I don’t live in America. And I really don’t know much about American politics or how it quite works,
I Will be studying American Studies At college (With a year at an American or Canadian College, JOY!), Soon enough though, (after spending a gap year in america/canada natch)
And maybe then I will earn more about such subjects.
Though I want to specialise In Canadian Studies If they’ll let me p

[Ronn_Bman]

Eisen,

Your original post was long, but I read it completely. I didn't quote it all or respond to it all. I chose to address what I wanted of the argument. I purposely ignored the parts of your argument I thought were misinformed, redundant, or unimportant, so you didn't have to post them again, but thanks for the effort.

Maybe you didn't follow the election on a daily basis like I did in 2000, and you're basing what happened then on what you read about those events after the fact, but I'm here to tell you Gore didn't argue for the inclusion of absentee ballets until it became clear that it was hurting his effort to have any votes recounted. The public wasn't buying his act, so he changed his story, but still tried to exclude a large number for not having the proper postmark, when under Federal Law absentee ballets from military service members DO NOT require a postmark. After the fact analysis is often quite informative, but I always take it with a grain of salt. I can tell you what I heard and saw Al Gore saying during that time. He did not want any votes re-counted outside Democratic counties until it became apparent it was the only way he might get any re-counted, and by then, it was too late.

Maybe you don't like Republicans or Democrats as you said, but you certainly go with the heavily Democrat point of view. Nothing wrong with the Democrate POV about election 2000 as long as it doesn't go to the conspiracy level. If the US Supreme Court had upheld the Florida Supreme Courts ruling, and the re-count actually proved Gore the winner (doubtful), would you be arguing against the Democratic corruption involved in the process? Or is it just that you can't like the winner of any US election because, in order to win, they must be corrupt?

EDIT FOR SMILIES AND OMITTED SENTANCE [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-10-2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: I Will be studying American Studies At college (With a year at an American or Canadian College, JOY!), Soon enough though, (after spending a gap year in america/canada natch) And maybe then I will earn more about such subjects. Though I want to specialise In Canadian Studies If they’ll let me p

Good for you! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I was completely oblivious to political considerations and international politics in my college days. I certainly wish I'd have taken an interest then.