Thread: Hell: Incompetence 1, Democracy 0. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000111

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
So I take off work early today to cast my vote, and what do I find? That those incompetent, festering pustules on the ass of humanity that comprise our county elections office HAVE PURGED ME FROM THE FUCKING POLLS. And I have torn my place apart looking for my four year old voter registration card that I have NEVER EVER EVER had to present EVER at any election EVER to prove that I'm allowed to vote. It has sprouted legs and walked away.

And for all you Democrat conspiracy morons: I am registered Republican. So bite my ass.

The revolution starts in about 71 minutes.

[ 10. March 2003, 00:59: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
With all the glitches, problems, dirty tricks and irregularities, isn't it time UN inspectors were sent in?


 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Erin, I don't know how it works where you live, but in Texas you can at the polls swear an avidafit that you are eligible to vote. Then under state law, the election judge has to let you vote.

Avidafits are then sent to the DA to make sure there's no voter fraud. But I've never heard of anything coming of that.

A little handy trivial from a former election judge.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
If I can't find the voter registration card, that's what I'm going to do. However, I am just so pissed off that I could spit nails. I mean, I registered to vote even before I turned 18 (in senior government you got to send in your form and they mailed you your card when you turned 18) and I was fucking PICKED FOR THE GRAND JURY BEFORE I EVER GOT TO CAST A SINGLE BALLOT. Six months on THAT goddamned jury, because it was the responsibility that came with voting. I have voted in every election since, including all but two primaries, and they can all line up and kiss my butt.

ARGH!!
 

---

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
And you just spent how much down there revamping your voting system?
 

---

Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :
 

(With you, not at you.)

 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
And you just spent how much down there revamping your voting system?

---

Evidently the correct answer is: not nearly fuckin' enough.
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Sod's law in action people. I'd say it was a beautiful thing, but Erin spitting nails at me is something I'd rather not experience.

Hope you managed to make the bozos let you vote Erin. It might have made a difference.

Viki

PS You were on the grand jury Erin? The one that was going to indict Bill Clinton?
 

---

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
Sympathy anger for you Erin!

Gee, the guy next to me in line this morning registered at the polling place. We can do that here in Minnesota and, I believe, 6 other states.

Obviously, Florida is not one of them.
 

---

Posted by Anglicub (# 3413) on :
 
I hear ya loud and clear.. Despite attempting to register TWICE since I moved here, I haven't been added to the rolls and couldn't vote today.
 

---

Posted by ThatsMrJuice2U (# 3076) on :
 
Yeah, I couldn't vote in the 2000 election because I moved from one country to another and my voter registration didn't transfer.


At least I did manage to get to vote this time around.

Hope it works out for you, Erin.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Oh well.One less vote for the Republicans.

Maybe there is a God


 

---

Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Oh well.One less vote for the Republicans.

Maybe there is a God

---

There is, but he's registered in Florida, and they won't let Him vote.

Seriously, I hope you get to vote Erin. You shouldn't be deprived of one of your basic rights just because the election officials there are chowderheads. But if you don't, at least you don't have to stand in the reportedly horrible line waiting your turn.
 

---

Posted by Vertebrate (# 1244) on :
 
So the Democrats get their revenge for those fiendishly complicated ballot papers last time!



<Ducks and runs>
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Go get 'em, Erin.

Meanwhile, my family and I live in one of the most important of the states-in-the-balance, on a federal, state and local level -- and my idiot husband decides THIS is the time to vote the straight Libertarian Party ticket!



I appreciate the impulse, and in fact I did vote for a couple of Libertarian candidates -- but not for senator, state senator or county board president, three contests that are very important and much too close to call.

Why didn't the moron get that garbage out of his system back when he was 25 instead of waiting until NOW? Maybe the American Trial Lawyers Association will send him a thank-you card when tort reform once again goes down in flames because the idiot widow of the (real) politician gets to keep the seat he only "won" last time out of sympathy.



Rossweisse // angry enough to say THAT STUPID SHITHEAD! among other things I normally avoid
verbalizing


 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Oh well.One less vote for the Republicans.

Maybe there is a God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
...At any rate, my civil rights were violated and only large sums of cash will lift the burden of oppression from my shoulders.

---

So sue. Fortunately, in that sense, it looks as if the Democrats will be holding the Senate, so ATLA will continue to rule and you can take the State of Florida for millions in compensatory damages.

Rossweisse // still massively annoyed


 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Sorry you went through that, Erin. Hope you got it straightened out.

FWIW, here in CA, I just brought in my voter's pamphlet, which has my registration info on the back. Had my driver's license, too, just in case.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Turns out that you have to be a citizen or something in order to vote. Gosh, I feel really bad about voting now. I hope Jean Cretien doesn't win because of me.
 

---

Posted by Sauerkraut (# 3112) on :
 
My voting experience:

I drove to the local polling place that has been where I voted since I moved to Kansas. Well, the idiots that be decided to screw around with the precints. So the polling place I have gone to for years is no longer my polling place.
"What the?"
"Here's a map. Where do you live?"
I look at the map.
"Where's north?"
"Here."
"Ahh. I am a geologist. I can read maps. I believe I'm here."
"Well go to the Episcopal church down the street."
"Thank you my dear old lady."
"Think nothing of it."
So I drive to the Episcopal church.
"Howdy. I would like to vote."
"You can't vote here."
"Why?"
"This is not your precint."
"What? I found where I lived here on the map."
"Let's take another look."
"Ohh, I was confused. I live here. I can read maps. I'm a geologist."
"Go to the Evangelical Free Church (damn splitters)."
"I shall. Thank you old lady."
"You are welcome."
So I drive to the Evangelical Free Church (damn splitters).
"Hi! I'm here to vote!"
"You cannot vote here. Talk to this other gentleman. He has the list for the precint your in."
"Why are two precints voting in the same building?"
"It is not for you to know. Now go."
"Hello, I'm here to vote!"
"You can't vote here!"
"Why not? I fucking registered. This is the fourth damn precint I've been to!"
"Let us look at the map."
"I've looked at the fucking map twice!!! It is worth shit!!! Shit!!! I should wipe my ass with it!!! That's all it's good for!!! I'm a geologist!!! I can read maps!!! I know what I'm talking about!!!"
"Then let us look at this other map. You might be able to find where you need to go here," says another old lady.
"There is where I live."
"And this is your precint. You are correct. This map is fucking worthless."
"Thank you old lady for agreeing with me."
"You are welcome. Let me see. Ahhh. You must go to the Baptist Church."
"Yes, I know where that Baptist church is. I could have walked there if I had known. Thank you for your help, old lady."
"Your welcome young type-A man."
I drive to the Baptist church. I have a headache now, and I swear if this is the wrong place, I'll rip everyone's head off.
"Hi. I would like to vote!"
"You came to the right place my young man."
"Ahh, wonderful. I've been to four different precints before this one."
"The map is shit, isn't it."
"Yes, I know. I'm a geologist. I can read maps, but apparently not this one."
Goes and votes all Republican to get revenge on Mereymike.
"Take that!"
"Who were you talking to?"
"Don't ask."
"Thank you for persevering. You must be one devoted man to keep going from polling place to polling place."
"It was very frustrating. May I have my sticker now?"
"Yes you may."
"Thank you lady about my mom's age."
"Your welcome."

It was slightly dramitized,(OK, more than slightly) but that is essentially my voting experience today. I went to four different places and five precints to find the right one, all because the City of Wichita couldn't produce one fucking readable map.
I have to admit, what made the last polling place better was that it had three middle-aged women and one college cutie manning (hehe, I made a funny!) the polling place. I was just glad not to see women like my grandmother.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Golly, I just had to state my name and sign on the line, therewith I went to the poll.

Zach
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
Sauerkraut - that could be one more proof that Baptists are the One True Church .

But could you explain what the 'sticker' was for. Do you get lollipops and stuff for voting over there?
 

---

Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoo.:
Y'know... I couldn't vote either.

Can I get some cash too?

---

Might help if you lived in America

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 
Well, at least Erin should be happy - here is the BBC's take on the results, and Erin has her Republican governor back as well as control of the Senate (thanks to the defeat of the **** widow that Rossweisse so despised)

From a British standpoint - ah well, that means war then
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
I have read this thread with great interest and have a number of questions:
1) Did Erin eventually get to vote?
2) Will she publish her letter of complaint?
3) Do you have to register to vote only once out there?
4) What is the 'tort reform' of which Rossweisse speaks?
5) Now that the Republicans are in charge of the civilised world, will Erin still get compensation?
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
And America wants complain about other nation's democratic processes?



Stop, it hurts...
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Matrix, I saw your anti-American slam on the "American style justice" thread in Purgatory, you ignorant baboon, so you can kiss my red-white-and-blue, star-spangled-banner-singing, allegiance-pledging, flag-waving ass. Moron.

To answer Moth's questions:

1. No.
2. Yep.
3. You have to register once, and then make changes any time you want to change your party affiliation or if you move.
4. For as long as I can remember, there's been a huge discussion about limiting the amount of punitive damages awarded in lawsuits.
5. Even if I were serious, I wouldn't get a dime, no matter who was in charge.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But could you explain what the 'sticker' was for. Do you get lollipops and stuff for voting over there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
3. You have to register once, and then make changes any time you want to change your party affiliation or if you move.

---

So when you register, you have to say which party you support? I thought who you voted for was meant to be a secret? Surely if you're registered as a democrat, then they'll knw you vote Democrat? Or do you not have to vote the way you register? In which case, why register it at all?

Sorry for so many questions, I'm curous now...

And it's a definite violation of your civil rights. Maybe you could work in something about how men and woman so that you could vote, and also how it's discrimination because you're a woman, or sane, or something?

Viki
 

---

Posted by Hull Hound (# 2140) on :
 
Well Erin, it looks like the Republicans have picked the election like a dirty nose. Congrats (through gritted teeth)
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
No, you do not have to vote for your party affiliation. You can register to any of the recognized parties or as an independent. Registering with a party affiliation entitles you to vote in that party's primaries, which is how they choose the final candidate. Some states have open primaries, where anyone can vote regardless of affiliation, but Florida is not one of them. I have to say I kinda like it that way.

In the last presidential election, I voted for a Republican representative, a Democrat senator, and a Libertarian president. We vote for candidates, rather than parties. It's not all that common that people vote straight tickets.
 

---

Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on :
 
when you register, from what i can remember from that far back, you have to tell the registrar what your party affiliation is. in fact, i think at our town hall there's a black book that lists every registered voter and their party affiliation just laying on the counter near the clerk's window (only nh would find that interesting reading for those waiting in line...i'm surprised it's not in the loo.)

here, people don't seem to care if you know their party. it's how they're actually voting on issues that many are itchy about. which is why our beloved town vote has been relegated to the polls for the last several years. people didn't like to have to stand up and vote down the new fire truck or the clerk's .20 cent raise and have all their neighbors know it. (and it was so useful to know that stuff in a good new england town, too!)

in a primary, you give your name and party and you have to vote the party you're registered with. unless you have switched to independent or a different party status. i'm not sure if or how long before voting day you have to switch because i've never done it. i think it used to be 10 days.

when you vote in a general election, you just give your name (we don't have to sign anything in nh...at least in my town, but then we don't get stickers either). in a general election, you can vote for anyone.

nh is a state where you can register at the polls on voting day (not sure if that applies to primary day or not). apparently nh had a record turnout yesterday (at noon, i was about the 450th voter and that was very good!) especially for unregistered voters. so i think that's a good option, even though the election results for nh governor make me want to .

the first excerpt i heard from his speech this a.m. was "we're so fortunate that campaigning in nh is not about money." this from a man who spent over 7 million of his personal finances! he could've single-handledly built us a new high school.
 

---

Posted by The Mid (# 1559) on :
 
Don't vote - it only encourages the bastards
 

---

Posted by troy (# 2516) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
3. You have to register once, and then make changes any time you want to change your party affiliation or if you move.

---

While this certainly doesn't apply in Erin's case, isn't it also true that if you do not vote for a period of time, your name is removed and you have to re-register? That's how Ohio works, at least. I also believe you have to re-register every time you move to a different state, and if you move at all you need to notify the Board of Elections so they can get you in the right precinct.
 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
Hey Erin,

I'm quite happy with the fact that i generally look down on all things american, BUT, where in the post you refer to did i slam the US?

Umm, if you look hard you'll find much better examples.

Yours,
The butt kissing baboon.....
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I can't watch.....

I mean, Blair Witch was one thing. The Exorcist was gruesome, but this is going to be just that little bit too unnerving.....
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rhisiart:
...(thanks to the defeat of the **** widow that Rossweisse so despised)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Hey Erin,

I'm quite happy with the fact that i generally look down on all things american, BUT, where in the post you refer to did i slam the US?

Umm, if you look hard you'll find much better examples.

Yours,
The butt kissing baboon.....

---

quote:

---

and that's about as positive thing you'll ever hear me say about america...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
...What is the 'tort reform' of which Rossweisse speaks?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Ah, well, now I that I have to reregister, maybe I'll opt for the Libertarian party instead.

---

 

---

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
I want to post an apology for escalating an argument unnecessarily. Whereas i stand by my criticisms of US policies in many areas, i allowed the perception to persist that i am opposed to all things american, and I'm not. Also instead of shutting up wheni realised i had pushed on a subject close to other poster's hearts, i pressed on. Again, i apologise.

I do have strong criticisms of US policies, and will, in the right place and time, argue for them, however, in this instance i argued in the wrong way, in the wrong place.

As your brother, i ask forgiveness.

Regards
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Well Erin, it looks like the Republicans have picked the election like a dirty nose. Congrats (through gritted teeth)

---

Aww, don't look at it as the Republican party winning, look at it as the United States winning this round of elections.
 

---

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :
 
it sort of makes up for Gray Davis winning
that the Republicans have control.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Aww, don't look at it as the Republican party winning, look at it as the United States winning this round of elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackbird:
when you register, from what i can remember from that far back, you have to tell the registrar what your party affiliation is.
<snip>
in a primary, you give your name and party and you have to vote the party you're registered with. unless you have switched to independent or a different party status. i'm not sure if or how long before voting day you have to switch because i've never done it. i think it used to be 10 days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Aww, don't look at it as the Republican party winning, look at it as the United States winning this round of elections.

---

Surely that's a stupid thing to say, whoever won. You can't possibly know that until long after the winners have been voted out again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
...What is the 'tort reform' of which Rossweisse speaks?...

---

Our British friends will no doubt be enchanted to learn that I think we should embrace the British-style "loser pays" system in civil suits. At present in the USA, anyone can sue anybody for anything, and there is no extra cost to the plaintiff, no matter how frivolous the suit. Insurance companies, in particular, have learned that it's cheaper to settle, regardless of merit or lack thereof.

There is also no limit on "pain and suffering" awards, so you get idiocies like the infamous McDonald's coffee suit. And ambulance chasers sniff around looking for medical cases that could be presented as due to negligence or wrongdoing, and sue doctors and hospitals. This is a big reason that medical insurance costs are rising; we're also finding a lot of doctors, particularly in specialties like OB-BYN, are opting out.

All of this makes a lot of money for a lot of lawyers, and keeps them in late-model Mercedeses, but it raises costs for everyone else and results in incredible injustice to those targeted for lawsuits.

The US Senate has been largely controlled by the American Trial Lawyers Association for years, so tort reform was stillborn. Perhaps we can hope for some changes now, if they can concentrate on something besides fomenting war with Iraq.

Rossweisse // hoping for SOME improvement...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
...(Although, R, it might interest you to know that that particular case has been intensely oversimplified by the press. You're shocked, I know).

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, it was big products-liability cases that have forced auto mamufacturers to install safety devices they kept claiming were too expensive to install...

---

Well, although I think we're pretty close on much of this, I have a bone to pick there, too:

I'm a small-boned female who has to sit close to the steering wheel due to the tragedy of short legs, and who needs things like her hands and hearing for professional purposes. I am a major fan of shoulder belts, and I was forcing my passengers to buckle up for years before it was mandated.

Thus, I do not want airbags. I do not need airbags. In fact, airbags are a real danger to my safety and that of my children. And I know of SO many cases in which airbags have gone off for no particular reason (in one case, a pothole set one off; in another, a woman tapped a concrete garage wall a little too hard while parking) and caused broken fingers, caused burns, caused deafness, and -- in the pothole case -- actually ripped off a woman's breast.

Airbags are designed for the 200-pound guys who can't be bothered to put on a seat belt, but who sued (or whose estates sued) the car companies for lack of safety equipment until the government mandated the airbags for all of us. They added $1,000 to the price of my new car five years ago, and -- after I got permission (!) from the feds to have them disconnected -- it cost me several hundred more to have their wires yanked. (And then the feds sent me some hideous stickers to put all over the dashboard and visors to advertise the fact that they HAD been disconnected. I think not.)



Okay, so maybe I should have voted the straight Libertarian ticket yesterday, too.

quote:

---

...so it isn't as if they outcome is necessarily all bad, or solely for the benefit of parasitical lawyers (who, by the way, wouldn't remotely stay in business if people didn't sue)

---

quote:

---

Anyway, tort reform, especially for medical malpractice, is long overdue. I think a loser-pays system, with the proviso that there be some way of not allowing that to become a "big money always wins" system, would probably improve things dramatically....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Turns out that you have to be a citizen or something in order to vote. Gosh, I feel really bad about voting now. I hope Jean Cretien doesn't win because of me.

---

Get with the times RooK.

Paul Martin is in charge. He wangled a procedural vote yesterday to make Jean look....less then Prime Ministerial.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
To the OP,

Geez...Erin....that sucks. Regardless of whether one agrees with your politics (I don't), them screwing you out of your voting potential is crappy.

on your behalf.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Had I been the manager of that McDonald's, I would have taken her to the emergency room and picked up the tab out of human concern, but their lack of compassion shouldn't result in a lawsuit of that sort.

---

quote:

---

and his insurance agent couldn't believe that I just wanted my car fixed and my medical bills covered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Thank you, Laura, for busting the $3 million McDonald's coffee myth. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Interestingly, there have been studies done that apologies from companies and stepping up to the plate to do just what you describe generally prevents lawsuits. Newsflash: sometimes people just really want it acknowledged that a company screwed up and did something bad. I'll try to find that study, it was really interesting....

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, my family and I live in one of the most important of the states-in-the-balance, on a federal, state and local level -- and my idiot husband decides THIS is the time to vote the straight Libertarian Party ticket!

---

All I can say is, the next person that says to me "vote your conscience" will hear me yelling a few Erinesque swear words that I've collected while reading this thread.

Voting your conscience in the U.S. is a choice between piss-poor and slightly-better-than-sucky and is like choosing between bad hemorrhoids and a pain in the ass.

IMHO, one can't vote pure libertarian until the revolution has begun and all the dumb bastards voting straight party-line democrat or republican are as sick of communistic taxation (democrats) and moralistic fascism (republicans) as us libertarians are! We have to vote with whatever of the two parties will do the LEAST damage.

Lastly, gridlock in government is our friend! What happened in Congress (all Republican with a Republican President) is a DISASTER waiting to happen!!!!
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Last night in an election post mortem David Gergen was asked whether or not Bush now has a mandate. His answer was that the U.S. will be in Iraq within 90 to 120 days. Tort reform may have to wait.

Greta
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Bend over Saddam.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Rossweisse wrote:

quote:

---

...yes, I know that McDonald's coffee is really, really hot. But holding a cup of really, really hot coffee between your thighs and opening it in a moving car is really, really stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But could you explain what the 'sticker' was for. Do you get lollipops and stuff for voting over there?

---

Now there's a lovely idea!! Hmmm...chocolate, t-shirts, doughnuts...


 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...IMHO, one can't vote pure libertarian until the revolution has begun and all the dumb bastards voting straight party-line democrat or republican are as sick of communistic taxation (democrats) and moralistic fascism (republicans) as us libertarians are! We have to vote with whatever of the two parties will do the LEAST damage. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Airbags are designed for the 200-pound guys who can't be bothered to put on a seat belt, but who sued (or whose estates sued) the car companies for lack of safety equipment until the government mandated the airbags for all of us. They added $1,000 to the price of my new car five years ago, and -- after I got permission (!) from the feds to have them disconnected -- it cost me several hundred more to have their wires yanked. (And then the feds sent me some hideous stickers to put all over the dashboard and visors to advertise the fact that they HAD been disconnected. I think not.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Bend over Saddam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timtim:
I'm glad I'm down in New Zealand away from misdirected planes, snipers and over sorts of mischeviousness.

You can keep your nuclear subs as well. Truck off Fuxton!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
As Dan Rather might say, "Fire up the kettle and break out the Nescafe, Aunt Gertrude, 'cause we're gonna stay up late to watch the fireworks." (What is he on, by the way?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Sit on your hands crying "Peace in our time!" all you want, but Saddam is still a bastard who murders his own people and supports terrorists that murder Americans.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Zach is right.

Oh, sorry. I should have issued a warning before springing that on you.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I think there will be some procedural changes on the Senate side that will move things along more quickly -- most notably in the confirmation of federal judges.

---

quote:

---

But I don't think the '02 results reflect the kind of paradigm shift (and boy, do I hate that phrase) that we saw after the '94 midyears.

---

quote:

---

For example, the big, bold, dealbreaker issue in the Georgia Senate race was whether the employees of the new Department of Homeland Security should be allowed to unionize.

---

quote:

---

As Dan Rather might say, "Fire up the kettle and break out the Nescafe, Aunt Gertrude, 'cause we're gonna stay up late to watch the fireworks." (What is he on, by the way?)

---

quote:

---

My primary opposition to the Republican winner Saxbe Chambliss (who defeated the incumbent Democrat, Max Cleland) was his suggestion that Cleland is somehow soft on national defense.

My modest proposal: It should be a punishable offense to question the patriotism of anyone who left three of his limbs in a Vietnamese jungle while in service to his country.

---

quote:

---

Sit on your hands crying "Peace in our time!" all you want, but Saddam is still a bastard who murders his own people and supports terrorists that murder Americans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
As Dan Rather might say, "Fire up the kettle and break out the Nescafe, Aunt Gertrude, 'cause we're gonna stay up late to watch the fireworks." (What is he on, by the way?)

---

Did he really say that???

David
now wondering what he's missing by not having a TV
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

*Whine* But we're not attacking Chile, North Korea, all these other places!

---

quote:

---

They just think that there may be a different way of dealing with him, and worry about the wider implications of an all out attack.

---

quote:

---

the war against terrorism is not just about people who kill Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

*Whine* But we're not attacking Chile, North Korea, all these other places!

---

You people need to think your logic through. You don't want an attack on Iraq, so you argue that other places need to be attacked?

Not logical, and quite stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
...I too refuse to have an explosive device aimed at my chest when I am careful enough to always use my primary restraint system....I suggest yanking that 30A-fuse - for free, and without asking any dipshit bureaucrat for permission....Worth noting - I leave my passenger's airbag intact. I rarely transport children...I still have little sympathy for someone burning themself, but now realize that there were real issues of contention.

---

quote:

---

On the contrary, it is completely logical to apply the reasons given for attacking Iraq to other countries who display the same characteristics Iraq does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

On the contrary, it is completely logical to apply the reasons given for attacking Iraq to other countries who display the same characteristics Iraq does.

---

That's not an argument against an attack on Iraq, it's an argument ~for~ and attack on North Korea.

---

It's a comparison which shows that if the combination of evil dictator and WMD aren't enough to make us attack North Korea, then they shouldn't be enough to make us attack Iraq.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
ChastMastr: OK, I made up the Aunt Gertrude one, but only because I couldn't remember one of his equally ridiculous real ones.

Rossweisse: The Wall Street Journal may have reported that, but Mrs. Liebeck's trial testimony (which the jury obviously credited) was that the engine was running, but the gear was in park. How 'bout we both let this one drop since we're in solidarity on the height/airbag fear?

Zach82: Attacking Iraq. Attacking North Korea. My, my, aren't we the busy boy? Could Niles, Michigan be next? (Thus endeth our three-post Era of Good Feelings.)

Ruth: You are, of course, correct that the selection of federal judges can be critical. My "no paradigm shift" comment (stop me before I say it again) was based on the observation that in some instances (not all, of course) the Republicans aren't all much further to the right than the Dems they defeated. For example, people like John Cornyn (R-TX elect) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC elect) are from the slightly more moderate wing of their party. And yes, the unionization issue is an important one, but it's unusual that a questions of federal labor policy would take center stage.

An aside: Is it just me or are the new federal baggage screeners substantially more thorough and professional? I've been very impressed. It just goes to show that you get what you pay for. And remember that it was the Republicans who favored continued privatization and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the obvious conclusion that they need to be federal law enforcement officers. The new system isn't perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
...How 'bout we both let this one drop since we're in solidarity on the height/airbag fear?

---

quote:

---

...My "no paradigm shift" comment (stop me before I say it again)

---

I very nobly refrained from killing you the LAST time you said it. Now, DON'T SAY IT AGAIN!



Rossweisse // please don't make me shoot you!
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Quote from RuthW

quote:

---

US politics overall would be markedly improved if people on all sides would stop saying things like "They are trying to bring the country to its knees," as if they truly did want to see the US brought low instead of, as is sometimes actually the case, having a different view of what would be good for the country.

---

quote:

---

True, we don't have Gingrich and the Contract on America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

*Whine* But we're not attacking Chile, North Korea, all these other places!

---

You people need to think your logic through. You don't want an attack on Iraq, so you argue that other places need to be attacked?

Not logical, and quite stupid.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
RuthW- *yawn* 'Cept North Korea has shown a willingness to cooperate with the rest of the world, and not a desire to destroy and conquer it like your guy in Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Presleyterian- Don't look at me, ~I~ never suggested a war with North Korea. It's RuthW who seems to want it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Og- *whap* Pay attention, we went over that already!

---

No. We are still going over it.

You, on the other hand, didn't so much go over it as pass over it.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
RuthW- *yawn* 'Cept North Korea has shown a willingness to cooperate with the rest of the world, and not a desire to destroy and conquer it like your guy in Iraq.

Zach

---

Ummm....Zach...since when has not supporting a war on Iraq meant Sadaam is "our" guy??? There are DIFFERENT tactics available to getting rid of Sadaam [anybody try praying lately ].

And...North Korea broke off talks with Japan on their nucleur program and refuses to stop it.

In this scenario, the U.S. has chosen, for reasons that seem to have more to do with issues of the First Gulf War, to go after Iraq's regime and is NOT persuing through diplomatic or other means, change of a nutbar regime in a country which WILL have nucleur weapons within a year.

You can't have it both ways Zach. Either admit real politik is involved in these decisions or give up on an illogical course of action. But don't cloak the coming Iraq war with the banner of urgent necessity when it so obviously is not the most urgent or necessary of conflicts.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Since when?

---

Well, for starters it admitted it had a weapons of mass destruction program, unlike, well, you know.

quote:

---

You couldn't have have missed the whole point of what she was saying more, could you?

---

quote:

---

Ummm....Zach...since when has not supporting a war on Iraq meant Sadaam is "our" guy??? There are DIFFERENT tactics available to getting rid of Sadaam

---

quote:

---

and is NOT persuing through diplomatic or other means,

---

quote:

---

Maybe if someone would suggest smething besides "Maybe asking Saddam real nice it would help."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

You couldn't have have missed the whole point of what she was saying more, could you?

---

She said it herself. If an attack on Iraq is necessary, then an attack on North Kores is necessary. It's what she insists on arguing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Alright, but don't you think you should at least allow some time for things with North Korea to play out a bit before you and Ruth insist on an attack?

After all, this business with North Korea's weapons broke just the other day, Saddam has been a cuss for years.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Quote from RuthW: US politics overall would be markedly improved if people on all sides would stop saying things like "They are trying to bring the country to its knees," as if they truly did want to see the US brought low instead of, as is sometimes actually the case, having a different view of what would be good for the country.

---

I agree with this, but it raises a question about something you said earlier in your post;

quote:

---

True, we don't have Gingrich and the Contract on America.

---

The Republican slogan you refer to was either the Contract with America or the Contract for America. I don't remember which. Both of these phrases have a positive meaning. The Democrats changed it to Contract on America, which would be a plan to do something bad to America.

You are not living up to your own standards.

---

quote:

---

WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING AN ATTACK.

---

quote:

---

God help the gene pool if you ever propagate your seed.

---

quote:

---

the governments of the US and the UK are not attacking Iraq for the reasons they have given us

---

Oh, this is because you don't trust the United States with the responsiblity of dealing with Iraq.

Lemme guess, you think the US is only in it for the oil.

Zach
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
Zach82 (82 is your IQ number, right?)

For crying out loud.

WE DID SAY SO! MULTIPLE F***ING TIMES, YOU CHIMP!

Have I at any point ever said that I thought that the US was "in it for the oil"? For that matter, did I not say "the US AND UK"? Have I made any accusations?

Do not accuse me of anti-Americanism, moron. I've been on the American side in every transatlantic s**tfight for the last three years. And there are people who can attest to that.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Like me.
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Actually, Zach, I think the reason for the move into Iraq is for other reasons, but
...again you are missing the point of the arguement. (Are you being willfully thick?)

If the U.S. gives out a reason for going after a regime soon, and then does not apply that reason to a regime that fits the bill even more, would they not be seen to be hypocritical and people would be wondering if there were other reasons.

Geez...give it up Zach..the "they might have weapons of mass destruction soon" excuse is discredited.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

WE DID SAY SO! MULTIPLE F***ING TIMES, YOU CHIMP!

---

quote:

---

Do not accuse me of anti-Americanism, moron. I've been on the American side in every transatlantic s**tfight for the last three years. And there are people who can attest to that.

---

quote:

---

Actually, Zach, I think the reason for the move into Iraq is for other reasons

---

quote:

---

Are you being willfully thick?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Sorry then, it's the accusation that almost always follows after accusations of deep, governmental secrets being associated with the United States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Are you being willfully thick?

---

Mmm...... could be.

---

quote:

---

Like winning elections, for example (in Bush's case)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Does it change the matter an iota to you that former President Clinton is fully supportive of an attack on Iraq? Or would you have had any problems with President Clinton leading the attack?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Another one of those assumptions. Usually anti-Dubya-ites have a love affair with President Clinton.

However, in no trial is "suspicion of ulterior motives" enough to be found guilty as charged.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Posted by Laura: Wood, love, stop feeding it, please. I'm tired.

---

quote:

---

OK. I'll give it a rest now. Arguing with the intellectually impaired/wet-behind-the-ears/incurably parochial (delete where applicable)** is tiring, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Now, do tell me what "incurably parochial" means.

---

There comes a point when people stop changing feet. Unfortunately/fortunately* Zach has not yet reached this point.

Viki

*Delete as appropriate depending on how you view feeding things.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Having read an unfortunately large portion of Zach82's posts, I feel compelled to share a disappointing revelation.

The evidence seems to support that, contrary to my previous almost-certain belief, he is NOT actually just a troll. He might actually be taking himself seriously.

I know. I know. It's sad.

My current theory for trying to explain his amazing ability to misconstrue other people goes as follows:
He's astoundingly stupid, but doesn't fully realize or accept it.
However, he's stumbled across the handy trick of merely stating random opinions that relate to at least one word someone else has said. Since being misunderstood annoys most intelligent people, they engage him for the purpose of making themselves clear. This, of course, just gives his trick more fodder to feed off of. His motivation for doing this, I'm guessing, is that by "debating" with intelligent people he feels justified in associating himself with them. Thus, by frustrating clever people, he thinks that in turn makes him clever - or perhaps even cleverer.

Of course, this really just makes him a dickhead, and a joke - but there's no way to explain it to him... <shrug>

(Let's see how that winds you up, fuckwit.)
 

---

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :
 
The U.N. voted unanimously, even Syria.

What will happen next depends, IMO, on what Saddam does, and Bush has made that clear.

Personally, I do not share a lust for war which has caused the divide here.

Neither do I think that Blair has just been a poodle saying, lets go in in support of the U.S. at all costs.

I actually believe that a debate has been going on , with the hawks on one side, and Powell and Blair on the other, to get UN approval before any further action is taken. The all out war approach has not, so far, won the argument. Sorry Zach, your president has listened to the world community.

He has also now persuaded it, including France and Russia, that something has to be done. The world is not taking the "Iraq can go on without anybody doing anything about it" path either.

Lets hope and pray he will disarm, lets hope and pray that many innocent Iraqis do not get killed, lets hope and pray that the damage that would happen to Wetern/Arab relations if a war took place does not happen.

Personally I believe that unless Saddam believes that the consequences of not behaving will be drastic, he will not change his ways. Tough talking and tough unanimous resolutions may help him see that.

Unfortunately, if he does not comply, we may need to put our threats into practise.

But that is not the gang ho "get out of our way view", "we're going to do it whatever" that, you Zach, have voiced on these boards before.

And people who disagree with my or your view are not terrible Anti Americans who would let Saddam get away with anything etc etc either. They just see the consequences, or have a moral view, which you should have respected, and I'm afraid when you did not, and when you did not reply to points that were made to you, you brought the rest on your head.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
If there's a need to do something about Saddam--and I'm not yet convinced there is--I'm not sure that *anything* would work. I'm not sure he would care.

He sees himself as another Saladin (12th-century anti-Crusader who retook Jerusalem).

If he's thinking on that scale, then *anything* anyone might do would play right into his fantasy.

As to why attack Iraq rather than any number of other countries, that's just as tangled as why we shut out Cuba but cozy up to China.

We need better options. I don't know what they are, but we need them.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

(Let's see how that winds you up, fuckwit.)

---

Oh my gosh, you are so close the the truth that I can only scoff in denial. *scoff*

quote:

---

Sorry Zach, your president has listened to the world community.

---

Golly, with all the name-calling, people seem to think I favor a mass slaughter, throwing caution to the wind, and colonization Europe style!

Well, I can dispell that perception right now. Not only am I happy that President Bush took things through the UN, I favor giving that Iraqi bastard one more chance to comply, though I seriously doubt he's really going to go through with it.

It's alright, just happy I clear clear things up.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0