Culture of corruption

[Back]

Phone-Jamming Records Point to White House (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/election_phone_jamming)


WASHINGTON - Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 — as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

---------------------------------

It just gets worse and worse.

[Tromp]

Just another example of the "Numbing" of America.

Nobody cares, everybody knows, and nothing will be done.

I like how in France the whole country uproars over a labor law and the govt. actually changes it due to the reactions. Here they are called anti-american, terrorists, conspiracty theorist, or worse.

Yeah I know move to France.... bla bla bla

[Wezas]

Him being an operative in the campaign alone doesn't mean much, he could just be acting on his own for a cause.

24 calls to the White House within a 3 day period right before he started jamming?

A bit shady.

I mean I call the George at least twice a week, but that frequency is a bit extreme.

[Landrion]

Just another example of the "Numbing" of America.

Nobody cares, everybody knows, and nothing will be done.

I like how in France the whole country uproars over a labor law and the govt. actually changes it due to the reactions. Here they are called anti-american, terrorists, conspiracty theorist, or worse.

Yeah I know move to France.... bla bla bla

I wouldnt say thats quite right from what I read in the article.

The perpetrator was punished
"Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas."


The perpetrator is a supporter of the republican party, but the fact that he called in doesnt establish collusion on committing a crime.

"If all you're pointing out is calls between Republican National Committee regional political officials and the White House political office on Election Day, you're pointing out nothing that hasn't been true on every Election Day," he said."


Still, I do find this aspect disturbing

"While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime."


It might be tempting to accuse the justice dept of being in the rep's back pocket, but then why not just cover the whole thing up if that were their agenda?

"The Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case"

If someone acts illegally in your interest and happens to have regular contact with you by nature of being your supporter in the first place that doesnt establish collusion on its own. It is possible there was collusion but the evidence was lacking enough that the justice dept did not want to pursue it.

So why the gloom and doom? If the administration is behind this kind of deplorable activity then they lost an operative and spent a lot of money trying to preserve it. If the administration is innocent of collusion a criminal got caught and punished for his wrongdoing. Hopefully itll happen more often.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah, it sucks so much to be in America where guilty people get punished and innocent people don't. Thomas Jefferson must be crapping his cravat over this.

[Tromp]

Yeah, it sucks so much to be in America where guilty people get punished and innocent people don't. Thomas Jefferson must be crapping his cravat over this.

Latrine,

That is soo not the case when it comes to politicians, athletes, movie stars, and the wealthy. Yes there are instances where the guilty are punished but there is also many instances where guilty walk away.

I'M NOT HATING ON AMERICA so don't start that crap.

[Artha]

I like how in France the whole country uproars over a labor law and the govt. actually changes it due to the reactions. Here they are called anti-american, terrorists, conspiracty theorist, or worse.
There's a little bit of a difference between whining on the internet and burning cars at night.

[ElanthianSiren]

Or forming protests that have gathered 150,000 in DC and 500,000 in California?

-M

[Daniel]

Yes, because those immigration laws have just slid through in spite of all these protests.

[ElanthianSiren]

No they haven't, which was the point of Artha's statement, I believe. I was agreeing with him.

-M

[Daniel]

....

okay then

[DeV]

Here they are called anti-american, terrorists, conspiracty theorist, or worse.
Liberals.



:wasntme:

[ElanthianSiren]

You still seem confused. I was referencing the proposed bill from CO that would make it a felony to be in this country illegally and construct the extensive fence along our southern border, which has passed the House. -Definitely the favorite among leaders of Congress (specifically the House Maj. Leader) but as much law currently as is the one opponents claim would amount to a degree of amnesty surpassing the last attempt at sweeping immigration allowance in 1972. It still has to pass the Senate. Now, if you want to propose that Congress should have mastered immigration reform since the LA Protest or the Monday protest in Washington, go ahead.

Again, if you're going to argue, argue. If you've come to potshot and act like a 12 year old on the playground, go find another sandbox, sweetcheeks.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Just another example of the "Numbing" of America.

Nobody cares, everybody knows, and nothing will be done.

I like how in France the whole country uproars over a labor law and the govt. actually changes it due to the reactions. Here they are called anti-american, terrorists, conspiracty theorist, or worse.

Yeah I know move to France.... bla bla bla

Yes.. because that's exactly what I want.. to be legislated by mobs of people who have their own self interests ahead of anything else.

Great idea. Next, I say we do away with congress and just have the media do polls to get bills made into laws.

Fuck it.. let's do away with government all together and have a company like Nelson Media just poll everything.

[Hulkein]

There's a little bit of a difference between whining on the internet and burning cars at night.

Hahaha

:clap:

[Tromp]

Yes.. because that's exactly what I want.. to be legislated by mobs of people who have their own self interests ahead of anything else.

Great idea. Next, I say we do away with congress and just have the media do polls to get bills made into laws.

Fuck it.. let's do away with government all together and have a company like Nelson Media just poll everything.

Oh come on! How in the heck can you infer that from what I wrote? Nifty idea though.

So there is no legislature that is directed towards satisfying someone's or some minor group's self interest(s)? That is a good one.

[Tromp]

There's a little bit of a difference between whining on the internet and burning cars at night.

LOL! Agreed. But it was just a generality.

[Sean of the Thread]

Oh come on! How in the heck can you infer that from what I wrote? Nifty idea though.

So there is no legislature that is directed towards satisfying someone's or some minor group's self interest(s)? That is a good one.

Exactly what I got from your post as well.

[Warriorbird]

We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers — and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.

- the New York Times

[Latrinsorm]

I bet you they've even got a Commie flag tacked up the wall inside of their (collective) garage.
How in the heck can you infer that from what I wrote?You specifically advocated mob democracy. It's an inference in the sense that words have meaning, yes. What else could you have possible intended the words "I like" to mean?
Yes there are instances where the guilty are punished but there is also many instances where guilty walk away. No there aren't.

See how easy that is? Provide data or kindly refrain from baseless statements. Baseless statements designed to show the worthlessness of baseless statements remain acceptable as dramatic devices.

[Warriorbird]

"Baseless statements designed to show the worthlessness of baseless statements remain acceptable as dramatic devices."

Latrin = drama queen.

[Tromp]

I bet you they've even got a Commie flag tacked up the wall inside of their (collective) garage.You specifically advocated mob democracy. It's an inference in the sense that words have meaning, yes. What else could you have possible intended the words "I like" to mean?No there aren't.

See how easy that is? Provide data or kindly refrain from baseless statements. Baseless statements designed to show the worthlessness of baseless statements remain acceptable as dramatic devices.

Ok one example is OJ.

[Latrinsorm]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=many

I prefer Emperor of Positive Logicivism, WB, if we simply must use honorifics.

[Warriorbird]

I prefer when you point our your own faults.

[Latrinsorm]

It is good that I am cognizant of my faults. Otherwise I might believe some of what you say about me, and I'd probably have to hit myself quite hard.

By my hand,

The Emperor

[xtc]

I bet you they've even got a Commie flag tacked up the wall inside of their (collective) garage.You specifically advocated mob democracy. It's an inference in the sense that words have meaning, yes. What else could you have possible intended the words "I like" to mean?No there aren't.

He did? I thought he was advocating freedom of expression and politicians who are responsive to the wishes of their constituents. What a radical idea some people would call it democracy.

[Latrinsorm]

Like I said, mob democracy.

[Back]

Yes.. because that's exactly what I want.. to be legislated by mobs of people who have their own self interests ahead of anything else.

Great idea. Next, I say we do away with congress and just have the media do polls to get bills made into laws.

Fuck it.. let's do away with government all together and have a company like Nelson Media just poll everything.

Unreal. This has to be sarcasm.

If its not sarcasm its either a statement saying that “everyone should accept everything politicians do no matter what”, or, that majority rules is somehow flawed.

The topic of this thread suggests that the majority do not rule. That people actively try to stop, hinder or otherwise mislead people about their right to vote is as close to treason as you can get because its subterfuge of one of our most basic principals. Of all the patriotic rhetoric being spewed about the one I cling too and believe in as an absolute is that people have died protecting our right to vote. If you prevent someone from voting then you totally dishonor, no you outright shit on those who gave their lives for us to have that right.

[Artha]

that majority rules is somehow flawed.
There's a difference between democracy and mob rule, so this statement is sometimes true.

[Latrinsorm]

that majority rules is somehow flawed.I'll take the Electoral College for $1000, Alex.

[Warriorbird]

Damn that direct democracy. It is so representational!

:rolls eyes:

[Latrinsorm]

Naturally you can say definitively that every American you've ever met or heard of is informed enough to have a say in who runs the most powerful country on the planet.

:rolls eyes:

:chuckles:

:winks:

:snorts:

:gets a little hungry:

:finishes this post:

[Hulkein]

Unreal. This has to be sarcasm.

If its not sarcasm its either a statement saying that “everyone should accept everything politicians do no matter what”, or, that majority rules is somehow flawed.

The topic of this thread suggests that the majority do not rule. That people actively try to stop, hinder or otherwise mislead people about their right to vote is as close to treason as you can get because its subterfuge of one of our most basic principals. Of all the patriotic rhetoric being spewed about the one I cling too and believe in as an absolute is that people have died protecting our right to vote. If you prevent someone from voting then you totally dishonor, no you outright shit on those who gave their lives for us to have that right.

The point is, just because there is a mob of people protesting doesn't mean they're the majority. The silent majority could want something totally different, they just aren't protesting.

[Skirmisher]

Naturally you can say definitively that every American you've ever met or heard of is informed enough to have a say in who runs the most powerful country on the planet.



The fact that Bush has been elected twice says to me that there are many uninformed or gullible people in the US.

Unfortunately informed or not they do have the right to have a say.

The mandate then must be to raise the level of education so they are better informed to make such important decisions, not decide that some noblesse oblige is needed and "care" for them indefinitely.

[Latrinsorm]

Unfortunately informed or not they do have the right to have a say.I disagree, and apparently so did the Framers. I don't really care what the Framers thought, incidentally, but that is the way the country's set up.

To be a little more philosophical though, why do you think people have a right to have a say in the selection of their leaders in a free country?

[Tromp]

To be a little more philosophical though, why do you think people have a right to have a say in the selection of their leaders in a free country?

Are you saying people don't have the right to elect their officials or are you playing symantics with the word "FREE"?

[Latrinsorm]

I'm saying that an intuitionist approach to rights isn't a good way of going about things, therefore we must have a reason for saying "people have X right", in this case the right to vote. Further, I'm saying that I respect Skirm very much, so I'm interested in her take on the matter.

I'm not sure what exactly you're accusing me of with the second bit there.

[DeV]

It's called talking in circles.

[Latrinsorm]

I've always found my speech fairly sinusoidal.

[Tromp]

I thought the same thing... weird

[Back]

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html)
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

Washington Post Staff Writer


On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Every day brings a new revelation. We were mislead. Get angry. You should be. No matter which side of the fence you sit on.

[Skirmisher]

I disagree, and apparently so did the Framers. I don't really care what the Framers thought, incidentally, but that is the way the country's set up.

To be a little more philosophical though, why do you think people have a right to have a say in the selection of their leaders in a free country?

The framers were not gods and certainly not perfect.

In this instance they were wrong even though well intentioned.


And the country is not "free" if the people do not have a voice in selecting their own leaders.

[Latrinsorm]

And the country is not "free" if the people do not have a voice in selecting their own leaders.I vehemently disagree. Governance (or anything for that matter) determined on whim isn't freedom. Freedom is exercising what makes us humans, not enslaving ourselves to base impulse. If people aren't informed, all they can go on is impulse. I'm not saying nobody should get to vote unless nobody is informed, which cursory examination shows is not the case.

I agree that we should educate everyone so that they can someday get to participate, but we've got to keep the uninformed out of the process until then for their own good. It's like saying a person should have the freedom to provide for his or her own existence and then not providing him or her the tools or know-how required to get the job done.

[DeV]

The uninformed are the greatest enemy to a Democracy. They are in the majority at the moment... sadly.

[HarmNone]

And who's to decide who is "uninformed", Latrinsorm? Those with whom the person doesn't agree, perhaps? If a person is educated through the education system of the society in which he/she lives, that person must be considered to be "informed". The decisions they make based on the information they have been given are theirs to make. Some may agree with those decisions and some may not. However, the right to make them still lies with the individual.

For that matter a whim, in and of itself, is an expression of free will.

[Sean of the Thread]

And who's to decide who is "uninformed", Latrinsorm? Those with whom the person doesn't agree, perhaps? If a person is educated through the education system of the society in which he/she lives, that person must be considered to be "informed". The decisions they make based on the information they have been given are theirs to make. Some may agree with those decisions and some may not. However, the right to make them still lies with the individual.

For that matter a whim, in and of itself, is an expression of free will.


That made no sense... My guess is you're drunk on baileys or cat piss fumes.

Also being educated anywhere in particular does make someone "informed".

[Back]

For that matter a whim, in and of itself, is an expression of free will.

As we have seen in the last few elections.

[TheEschaton]

I agree that we should educate everyone so that they can someday get to participate, but we've got to keep the uninformed out of the process until then for their own good. It's like saying a person should have the freedom to provide for his or her own existence and then not providing him or her the tools or know-how required to get the job done.

That's pretty aristocrat shit, man. It is the duty of the "informed" to inform the "uninformed", for the very reason that the uninformed can fuck up the lives of the informed.

If there isn't such a motivating reason to inform the uninformed, I rather think the informed will succumb to their "base impulse" and repress the uninformed, miring them in their own idiocy, while they grab power and hold on for dear life.

Democracy is free choice for all. Even the fucking idiots.

-TheE-

[Tromp]

And who's to decide who is "uninformed", Latrinsorm?

It is the job for the sinusoidal.

[Skirmisher]

And who's to decide who is "uninformed", Latrinsorm? Those with whom the person doesn't agree, perhaps? If a person is educated through the education system of the society in which he/she lives, that person must be considered to be "informed". The decisions they make based on the information they have been given are theirs to make. Some may agree with those decisions and some may not. However, the right to make them still lies with the individual.

For that matter a whim, in and of itself, is an expression of free will.

That is exactly what could never allow me to go along with limiting someone's right to vote due to some sort of testing.

Latrinsorm and I spoke some about this in aim and I told him how just as politicians use gerrymandering to gain advantages now so would they find ways to abuse any new system used to determine "voteworthiness" of citizens. Who knows exactly how, whether it be in the formulation of the tests to try to exclude or facilitate certain segemnts voting or as crude as tampering with results in areas where one candidate held an advantage in numbers over another.

The only way to eliminate any potential fraud of that type is to not allow the environment where such possibilities exist to come into being.

Improving the education of our voters I agree with as essential for our self preservation, but no testing that actually affects ones right to vote.

[Latrinsorm]

And who's to decide who is "uninformed", Latrinsorm?I discussed this with Skirm as well, and a rudimentary grasp of the relevant information (cultural, social, political) is all that's really required. People who can't discern between Iraq and Iowa are uninformed, for instance. It's really not that hard to come up with some simple criteria.
Those with whom the person doesn't agree, perhaps?How uncharitable. Tut tut.
If a person is educated through the education system of the society in which he/she lives, that person must be considered to be "informed".Not really. I know for a fact that not everyone who goes through an education system remembers (in the conscious sense) everything they are taught. Certainly we were exposed to some pertinent information at some time, but that can be said for anyone who looks at a newspaper. It doesn't mean we actually *know* any or enough of it. I'm really good at arithmetic, that doesn't mean I know what NAFTA stands for.
For that matter a whim, in and of itself, is an expression of free will.Not even slightly true. Whims are necessarily whimsical or impulsive. If impulse was free will, wind would have free will.

A person may find that a willful decision happens to coincide with what they would have done had they followed a whim, I have no problem with that. I don't think we should have a system of election based on crossing our fingers and hoping peoples' whims follow that mold when a much better solution is available.
It is the duty of the "informed" to inform the "uninformed", for the very reason that the uninformed can fuck up the lives of the informed.No no, for the reason that their OWN lives will be necessarily enriched. The driving emotion is love, not fear.
Democracy is free choice for all.I agree wholeheartedly that pure democracy is votes for all. I suggest that nobody would ever suggest pure democracy as a viable system for government. I further note that even the current system is not votes for "all", it is only votes for "people of a certain arbitrary age born in a certain arbitrary region who are not convicted felons". Further, I must note that the uninformed in question are not technically utilizing free choice, for the reasons I've expounded upon above.

As I noted with Skirm's correct point of corrupt politicians in our conversation, it is necessarily the case that "bad" politicians would eventually be weeded out of the system unless more than half of the electorate was tampered with to the effect the tamperers desired. It's absolutely possible for some vast consortium to engage in such tampering, but I think it's awful pessimistic to think they could get more than half and get away with it. Also assumed in this is that non-corrupt people would even run to be politicians, which would be pretty easy to get going once the current environment was fixed.

[Warriorbird]

Right. The invisible hand makes everything okay!

:rolls eyes:

You come off as sounding like you'd have supported the Jim Crow laws, Latrin.

[Latrinsorm]

Describing a Kantian view as the invisible hand (utilitarian, for those who weren't aware) would be unbelievable if it came from anybody but you, WB. I'm starting to think it's a pathological need for you to describe people as supporting the exact opposite of what they hold. What other motivation could you possibly have? Even trollers get bored eventually.

[Warriorbird]

Alternately I'm the only one with enough balls and acuity to call you on incorrect opinions about yourself and poor applications of social philosophy and logic onto faith based arguments.

I actually believe you display a staggering amount of incorrectness. If I was just trying to annoy you I'd have quit long ago.

[Stanley Burrell]

Describing a Kantian view as the invisible hand (utilitarian, for those who weren't aware)

Kant's very own self-described theism-based teleos, as is used in about a bajillion of his antitheses (deliberately inserted [durrr...]), has completely ruled out the above logic as a philosophically acceptable standpoint from which to debate. Also, that's IMHO, naturally ;)

Sincerely,

:offtopic:

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Just another example of the "Numbing" of America.

Nobody cares, everybody knows, and nothing will be done.

I like how in France the whole country uproars over a labor law and the govt. actually changes it due to the reactions. Here they are called anti-american, terrorists, conspiracty theorist, or worse.

Yeah I know move to France.... bla bla bla


Well no.. you're right.

I think that everyone in the Government should go and read (or re-read) "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau.

Even if you don't like the idea of peaceful protest.. he has a point that I heavily agree with-- that the Majority should only decide what matters need to be decided on, not what the decision regarding the manner is. He contends that the Majority is immoral, and that they are most likely to be wrong. Do I agree? Yes.. I do.

The Majority of human kind agreed that Slavery was OK for over a few milleniums.. since the beginnings of man kind, really. Only recently has that been overturned, a few centuries at that. In the light of mankind, most of our recent civilization and ideas about what it means to be human are minority ideas-- in the broad scope of human existance this more enlightened part of history is just a blip on the map. But it took people, a minority, going against thousands of years of the majority saying something was ok, to ultimately turn the accepted standard into something that wasn't ok.

So now I'm rambling but you get where I'm going with this. I'm like you-- the whole un-American thing pisses me off. It annoyed me with John Kerry that people bitched about him protesting the war, as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy that we had a canidate who used all available and LEGAL avenues for getting his voice and ideas heard.

---

BACK on subject.. as much as I wish I could feign some sort of shock or suprise at corruption within the Bush Administration and everything it does, I really can't anymore. I hope the Democrats win back the Senate and impeach his stupid ass in all honesty.

And as liberal as I am, I DO agree with republicans on more than just a few issues.. and so I can honestly say that while he's not my favorite because he's not Democrat, I'd never wish a President to be impeached unless they trully were an asshat. Bush is the epitome of said qualification standard, at least in my mind.

[Back]

http://www.zendada.com/images/unknown.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

You've got the situation pegged, WB. Everyone on the board besides you is just too afraid of me to step up and call me, because I'm such a terrifying individual. I might, um, walk too close to them when it's windy out and they're trying to eat ice cream and get my hair caught in it. YEAH!!!! Man you must have HUGE balls (or are lactose intolerant or something).

You'd have been much better off describing yourself as the only one who cared enough about my drivel to bother correcting it. That would have been a much easier position to defend.
I actually believe you display a staggering amount of incorrectness.Your belief is noted under the heading of Staggeringly Ill-founded with cross-references to Lack of Effort in Proof and Grossly Flawed Perception. Overall I give it a D-.
faith based arguments.While I was pleased to see "circular reasoning" and "out of context" go out of vogue, it bums me out that another specious, repetitive attack has risen to take their place. Is it inevitable that people feel the need to latch onto these attacks whose falseness is patently obvious to the casual observer?

Let's suppose I humor you and ask what exactly about the current argument I present is "faith-based". Let's further suppose I ask you to point out the alleged flaws in my logic. What would you say?
Kant's very own I won't pretend to know what Kant's personal beliefs were. However, a Kantian view is deontological by definition. I don't really know wtf the rest of what you said meant, but Kantian = deontological. I find it highly unlikely that Kant would ascribe to a teleological view given his statements on that class of ethic, but I suppose it could be possible.

[Warriorbird]

Again. Whole lot of hot air. Maybe nobody else cares. Maybe you should be so lucky as to have someone who does.

I think you're the perfect metaphor for the President. He's got Dick Cheney and Karl Rove at least...but maybe that isn't enough. Then again...I don't think anybody's ever really reached you because you always have that extra dollop of nonsense to convince yourself that it is all okay. You're always right!

[Latrinsorm]

You're always right!Everybody I regularly converse with has at one time or another convinced me that I was incorrect on at least one position. Therefore, you must concede that it is not the case that I am incapable of being convinced. Rather, it must be the case that you are incapable of making a convincing argument for your particular position. Case in point:
What would you say?Your response?
Whole lot of hot air.The thought process that leads to these sort of responses must be fascinatingly bizarre. On the one hand you claim to be concerned with the correctness of my positions, and on the other you seem to think that their faults are self-evident to such a degree that to even request their enumeration is some sort of ploy or red herring. As such, you reject such requests out of hand and don't even bother to *name* the faults you find so damning. How do you expect to convince anyone of anything that way? What's the point of even *making* those kind of responses?

[DeV]

Kant's very own self-described theism-based teleos, as is used in about a bajillion of his antitheses (deliberately inserted [durrr...]), has completely ruled out the above logic as a philosophically acceptable standpoint from which to debate. Also, that's IMHO, naturally ;)

Sincerely,

:offtopic:Heh, I think Kantian theories have no place in political discourse unless we're talking about war and justification which noone truly gives a fuck about this day in age anyway. I would love to see someone live their lives according to Kant’s ethics for a week.

[Warriorbird]

How do you expect to convince anyone of anything that way? What's the point of even *making* those kind of responses?

How do you expect lame philosophical babble with deep flaws to convince anyone of anything or not at the very least piss them off? I wasn't even a philosophy major and I've noted holes.

Simple. Sincerity.

The same way Bush successfully put the whole culture of corruption in place. Be sincere and rationalize the hell out of things. Just like you constantly do. If your values were really as solid as you claim they are you wouldn't defend half of what you do defend. Same's true of the President.

[longshot]

Unreal. This has to be sarcasm.

....

If you prevent someone from voting then you totally dishonor, no you outright shit on those who gave their lives for us to have that right.

I can clearly picture you screaming this while sitting outside of a coffee shop, and inadvertantly spitting in some guy's latte.

[Latrinsorm]

I've noted holes.Holes that you absolutely *refuse* to divulge. How convenient.
How do you expect lame philosophical babble with deep flaws to convince anyone of anything or not at the very least piss them off?I don't expect to convince anyone right off the bat. I expect people to be at least passingly rational, and as such I expect people to consider the arguments for every side of any issue. Following that, I expect to engender gainful discussion on any issue. Discounting another's argument for undefined, nebulous "holes" or "babble" would be wholly contrary to that aim, and to not have that aim begs the question as to why one would discuss at all, hence my original question to you.
The same way Bush successfully put the whole culture of corruption in place.Everything I hear about this guy makes him seem smarter and smarter. I mean now you've got him going back in time and convincing Nixon to break into Watergate.
I think Kantian theories have no place in political discourse How could ethics be foreign to any discourse?
I would love to see someone live their lives according to Kant’s ethics for a week.I imagine you see people living such a life every day, if not every hour. The Categorical Imperative is just an exhaustively (exhaustively) proven Golden Rule. For instance any true Christian or any true Confucian would be living according to Kant's ethics (in addition to a couple other things).

[Back]

I can clearly picture you screaming this while sitting outside of a coffee shop, and inadvertantly spitting in some guy's latte.

Clairvoyant you are not. A powerful imagination with a talent for embellishment and storytelling, maybe. A need to categorize? Indubitably.

Change all that to me pontificating amiably while sitting in a dive bar at closing inadvertently talking to a passed out drunk and you'd be much closer.

Truth is I typed on a message board at home on my computer.

I still stand by that statement regardless of venue. Cheating other people out of their right to vote, here in America, in my opinion is treason.

[Sean of the Thread]

A powerful imagination with a talent for embellishment and storytelling, me pontificating amiably while sitting in a dive bar at closing inadvertently talking to a passed out drunk. I still stand by that truth.


Very good description of yourself.

[Warriorbird]

Holes that you absolutely *refuse* to divulge. How convenient.

You just deny them. And no, I don't think Bush has done a terrible job of denying things. Heck, I'd say he's pretty masterful at it.


I expect people to be at least passingly rational,

Precisely my basic problem with your thinking. You aren't. When faith is the basic of all of your thinking you deny rationality... just like Bush.

[Latrinsorm]

You just deny them.Again, how convenient.
Precisely my basic problem with your thinking. You aren't.If I am so irrational, it should be awfully easy to show the gaps in my logic. What a shame that you can't seem to find any.

[Warriorbird]

I just did. Once again it was, "But not really!" from you. Faith isn't rational... except in rationalizing, which you love.

:)

[DeV]

How could ethics be foreign to any discourse?How could you not notice that I specifically said Kantian theory in relation to political discourse? Now quote me on where I stated that ethics were unnecessary and foreign to any discourse.


I imagine you see people living such a life every day, if not every hour. The Categorical Imperative is just an exhaustively (exhaustively) proven Golden Rule. For instance any true Christian or any true Confucian would be living according to Kant's ethics (in addition to a couple other things).I consider Christ to be the only true Christian. Lots of people lead strict, predictable lives but you imagining I see people that live that way everday is nothing more than your imagination in overdrive. I haven't seen it yet, but if I do happen to see this occuring and the person isn't a miserable wretch then I'll stand corrected.

[Latrinsorm]

How could you not notice that I specifically said Kantian theory in relation to political discourse?Certainly the only Kantian theory we're talking about is Kantian ethics. I mean, it's possible you could have been talking about his theory of knowledge, but it sure is implausible.
I consider Christ to be the only true Christian.Even then, one can certainly see Christ every day. I don't know why you don't see anyone living life that way, as I see people like that all the time. Maybe New England really is the best part of the country or something, I dunno.

[Warriorbird]

Hilarious.

[Latrinsorm]

What's truly hilarious is you using your belief as proof for itself and apparently considering that a rational thing to do.

[Sean of the Thread]

He does idiotic shit like that all the time. Since I shut blacklash up he hasn't been as bad. You're welcome.

[Warriorbird]

What's truly hilarious is you using your belief as proof for itself and apparently considering that a rational thing to do.

Funny. Sort of seems like your basis for all arguments. Belief. And Xyelin...don't try.

[DeV]

Hilarious.Beyond words.

[Hulkein]

LOLOLOLLOL BEYOND GTEH WORDZ

[DeV]

:yes: What an untapped source of creative and humorous fulfillment.

[Hulkein]

:clap:

[Latrinsorm]

Sort of seems like your basis for all arguments.It is not a matter of belief that some people under age 18 could vote well and some people over age 18 do not vote well, it is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of belief that whims are whimsical, it is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of belief that uninformed voters necessarily cannot vote well/freely, it is a necessary truth.

Nowhere have I stated that these points are true because I believe them. You've stated that my logic is flawed because you believe my logic is flawed. I can actually cite a line of reasoning and examples. You can apparently only reiterate yourself and hope nobody takes you seriously enough to notice it.

Which once again brings me to the puzzling question: why even bother? It's an almost Taborian strategy. A theory I haven't explored is that perhaps because you rarely bother to read what people actually say, you believe that everyone else extends you the same disrespect, therefore you're free to post any old random thing you think up. I suppose that's *logically* consistent, but it's still awful puzzling.

[Sean of the Thread]

I don't need to try. Any conversation with you fruits is easily pwned with logic. Logic and fact come easy. Keep spewing your shit.

[Warriorbird]

Uh. Yeah. You stick right to that.

Logically it is a waste of money to be in Iraq. Funny. That sounds pretty conservative.
Logically making faith based government decisions is a bad idea in this theoretically multi religious country.
Logically making illegal aliens felons doesn't do much about them getting government benefits or getting all kinds of jobs. It sure does feed the prison industry though.

It was better when you were just randomly tossing up bits of nonsense at the end of threads. You were like the designated shark jumper.

But again, of course, you can disprove everything I said by your blind faith in Bush. Praise Jesus!

[Tisket]

If I had to list the people guilty of going on self-justification preachathons Latrinsorm wouldn't even make the top third...

[Sean of the Thread]

Uh. Yeah. You stick right to that.

Logically it is a waste of money to be in Iraq. Funny. That sounds pretty conservative.
Logically making faith based government decisions is a bad idea in this theoretically multi religious country.
Logically making illegal aliens felons doesn't do much about them getting government benefits or getting all kinds of jobs. It sure does feed the prison industry though.

It was better when you were just randomly tossing up bits of nonsense at the end of threads. You were like the designated shark jumper.

But again, of course, you can disprove everything I said by your blind faith in Bush. Praise Jesus!


>>Logically it is a waste of money to be in Iraq<<

Not so. Prove it or shut the fuck up? Thought so.

>>Logically making faith based government decisions is a bad idea in this theoretically multi religious country.<<

Not so... this country is Christian (78%) (with me not being one)

>>Logically making illegal aliens felons doesn't do much about them getting government benefits or getting all kinds of jobs. It sure does feed the prison industry though.<<

I never supported that particular move for the most part. Also most felons do not end up in the prison "industry". I do support legal immigration which is more than attainable and if stiffer penalties for ILLEGALs works as an incentive (duh) than there is a middle ground that has to be reached.

>>It was better when you were just randomly tossing up bits of nonsense at the end of threads. You were like the designated shark jumper.<<

Most of what either you or blacklash throw up is flavor of the week libby materia at bestl. You guys ARE the designated entertainment at the very least around here. Most the time you remind me of the dumbshit PETA bitches in the student union whining for attention.

>>But again, of course, you can disprove everything I said by your blind faith in Bush. Praise Jesus!<<

I hardly have faith in or praise for Bush as you keep saying and I certainly don't have faith in Jesus (I'm not Christian) I do have faith in LAW AND ORDER.

[Warriorbird]

How much money exactly have we spent on the war? How much have we regained?

78% Christian does not equal ALL Christian.

"Most the time you remind me of the dumbshit PETA bitches in the student union whining for attention."

I've never supported PETA. I mainly like to argue.

:shrugs:

A chat with an old friend this evening may render it all moot though. He reminded me of something important.

[Sean of the Thread]

>>A chat with an old friend this evening may render it all moot though. He reminded me of something important.<<

Elaborate brotha!

[Axhinde]

I hope he reminded you that the Soprano's comes on at 9 eastern, HBO Sunday's. Due to my recent re-injury, I forgot. :(

On topic: I dont agree with our troops being deployed still. But at the same time I see the need to keep them there for now. I like some the of "libby materia" crap mainly because it's funny. Bill Mahr is de man!

[Warriorbird]

Kinda. He reminded me about something we said we'd do as kids and kind of called me to task for not doing it. He has.

Therefore, I think instead of responding much, I'll serve up some Bill Hicks quotes.

"People say "Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world". Yeah, maybe, but you know what, after the first 3 largest armies, there's a REAL big fucking drop-off. The Hare Krishnas are the 5th largest army in the world, and they've already got all our airports."

-Bill Hicks

"Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me.""

-Bill Hicks

[Kranar]

All I can say is that the word "logic" is being used way too much in this thread without much of an understanding or appreciation for what logic actually is. It is possible for a logical argument to be false, even if the argument uses the most rigorous of logic. A logical argument should always be correct, but it can be false if the argument is not sound. That's right, correctness and truth are not the same thing and people are interchanging them here a bit too much. Since no one has presented anything even remotely close to a set of premises from which a logical argument can be based upon, no one is really in a position to decide whether their argument or their opponents argument is logical or otherwise.

On the issue of American democracy, Latrinsorm, you are right in the factual matter that the founding fathers of the U.S. did not want the general population to elect their president. That is an actual fact and why the Electoral College exists. Citizens were to elect those who most directly represented them, members of Congress, and then it would be the role of the state to appoint electorates who were meant to be knowledgeable and competent enough to elect a President.

Where I disagree with you is on why this is the case. When these issues were considered, the entire notion of mass media was unheard of. While newspapers technically existed, they presented information in a format far different than how they exist today.

Thus, it would not have made any sense for the general population to elect a President they knew nothing about. They wouldn't have even known how the different candidates looked like. Honestly, imagine living in the late 18th or early 19th century without a radio, T.V., photography, and with newspapers being fairly small and succint and reporing information that was weeks or months old.

It was based upon this that the founding fathers did not want citizens to elect their president, instead delegating that role to electorates whose jobs would be to select a president that best reflected the needs of the State as a whole.

Today that situation is entirely different, people have all the access to the information they need to elect a President. Perhaps even with all this information they will make a decision we can agree is stupid, but it's not on that basis that one can deny them the right to vote.

I don't regard democracy to be the best form of government because it results in the most competent people being put in charge of the government. The benefits of a democracy have more to do with the side-effects it has on a society. History shows that democracies result in higher productivity, greater political stability, lower poverty rates, and although the U.S. is itself a major exception to this, and perhaps an exception that can be justified positively, democractic governments are a lot less likely to engage in war or have war declared upon them.

So yes, I agree that a democracy doesn't result in the best man running the country, and that in a democracy very stupid people will vote in a very ill informed manner... but the many other benefits far outweigh the consequences that would result from a dictatorship, or an aristocracy, even if those two forms of government did have the best people in charge of them.

[Latrinsorm]

Thus, it would not have made any sense for the general population to elect a President they knew nothing about.My point is this still goes on today. Saying "Well Kerry's a liberal, so I'll vote for the other guy" is as informed a decision as saying "Well Bush is short, so I'll vote for the other guy". It doesn't really have any basis in anything relevant.
people have all the access to the information they need to elect a President.The information is absolutely *out* there, I just don't think we can assume that everybody is making use of it. Further, it's absolutely insane to assume that people abruptly know everything they need to after 9,460,800 minutes of life, but not 9,460,799 minutes. Maybe I'm just amnesiac, but I don't remember the Knowledge and Discernment Fairy prancing into my room on my 18th birthday.

I'm not saying people voting in an uninformed manner is bad because it leads to less qualified leaders. Logically it could result in electing the best available candidate just by chance. I'm saying that people voting in an uninformed manner is bad per se.

Finally:
That's right, correctness and truth are not the same thingI don't know if this is different in Canada, but the accepted term here is "validity" for an argument whose form cannot lead to a false conclusion given true premises. That's what you're talking about, right?

[Kranar]

I don't know if this is different in Canada, but the accepted term here is "validity" for an argument whose form cannot lead to a false conclusion given true premises. That's what you're talking about, right?


Indeed I am; it's a bit irksome to see people use the term logic without even knowing what logic is or its role in the formulation of an argument.



My point is this still goes on today.... It doesn't really have any basis in anything relevant.


It does still go on today, yet today people have the choice to be informed or not informed. Whereas before people did not even have the choice to be informed even if they wanted to be. There is no qualification for being an elector, and infact an elector can choose to make an entirely ignorant and dumb vote just like voters today are entitled to. What made them special is that they had that choice to make an informed decision or an uninformed decision, who unlike the average American citizen back then, did not.

Today, in the information age, every citizen has the option to make an informed decision, and if they choose not to and want to select a President because he's tall or short or they can picture themselves chilling out with the guy drinking a beer or two... that's their choice.

All that's relevent is that the choice exists, and it's when that choice exists that you get all the benefits that come with being a democracy, the benefits which I outlined in my previous post and which have very little to do with the actual qualifications of the individual elected.



I'm saying that people voting in an uninformed manner is bad per se.


People voting in an uninformed manner is worse than people voting in an informed manner, but it is not worse than if those people did not or could not vote at all.

The reasons I gave were quite numerous and if you can present some counter arguments to those benefits under an aristocratic society, by all means feel free to do so.

[Latrinsorm]

The benefits of a democracy have more to do with the side-effects it has on a society.I can't argue with that, as I have no evidence to the contrary, but my point is that there is a better alternative, one where we wouldn't necessarily lose any of these democracy-based benefits.

The trick about this that keeps it from being an "aristocracy" (and presumably getting rid of demobenefits) is that it would be self-imposed under the way the democracy works now. It *should* be truly self-imposed by individuals, but that's why we ought to have laws for in the first place.

[Gan]

Speaking of corruption... (couldnt resist... :whistle: )


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The top Democrat on the House ethics committee, Alan Mollohan, will leave the panel -- at least temporarily -- while he defends his own financial conduct, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday.

Mollohan's decision comes in an election year when his party is accusing majority Republicans of allowing a "culture of corruption" in Congress.
Mollohan, of West Virginia, will be replaced by Rep. Howard Berman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the panel. Mollohan has denied any wrongdoing.

The only evenly divided panel in the House, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has been divided along partisan lines for the past 16 months and unable to launch any major new investigations. If Mollohan had stayed while under his own ethics cloud, the chances for the stalemate to end would have been almost impossible.

The Wall Street Journal reported two weeks ago that Mollohan steered millions of dollars to nonprofit groups in his district -- with much of the money going to organizations run by people who contribute to the lawmaker's campaigns.

Also, a conservative group filed a complaint with federal prosecutors this year questioning whether Mollohan correctly reported his assets on financial disclosure forms.

While Mollohan's troubles threaten to become a major campaign problem for Democrats, Pelosi, of California, said in a statement that Mollohan decided on his own to step down and that she accepted his decision.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

SOURCE:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/21/mollohan.ap/index.html

[Back]

So whats the score now? 5-1, Repubs in the lead?

[Latrinsorm]

As far as I know the D-crat hasn't been convicted of anything, so you guys can still throw up the squadoosh if you feel like it.

What should concern people is that an Ethics Committee (an ETHICS Committee, now) is subject to partisan politics.

[Gan]

ANYthing is subject to politics, partisan or otherwise.

I just find it hypocritically hillarious that even with all the attention the Democrats have given the Republican fat cats like DeLay and company that they could not keep one of their own out of trouble.

Reminds me of my freshman poli-sci professor and his infamous line "All politicians lie!". Regardless of what side of the Aisle one resides on, the common denomenator is always going to be that he/she's a politician first and foremost.

Perhaps if there were term limits it would inhibit the long term comfortable places these guys make for themselves that seems to attract the temptation to do wrong.

If this one is guilty then it will come to light soon enough. Much like DeLay and all of his side stepping.

Oh, and Backlash - with as much noise that has come from the Democratic leadership with regards to corruption, and the culture of... No matter what the score is, any number up on the boards for the Democrats is inherently worse because of the bandwagon concept of "the culture of corruption" that was hatched by the very same people.

All this in time for election year, I wonder what else we'll see come to light as we get closer to November. :popcorn:

[Back]

Here is another one for you. More along the lines of what has been dragging the Repubs down. This time, its a Dem Rep with AT&T in his pocket fighting for giving control of the internet to the phone companies.

If free internet is taken away I will be majorly pissed.

----------------------------------------------------

Rush's million-dollar conflict? (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-sweet25.html)


WASHINGTON -- An Englewood community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a key player on telecommunications legislation, received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T, one of the nation's largest phone companies.

The chief of a congressional watchdog group says Rush's ongoing association with the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation and his role in shaping telecommunications law as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a conflict of interest. Using charitable giving as a backdoor way to curry favor with lawmakers is coming under increasing scrutiny, figuring in controversies associated with former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who was forced to temporarily step aside as the ranking Democrat on the Ethics panel.

[Wezas]

Update:

Former GOP offical sentanced to 7 years on phone-jamming charges (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/05/16/former_gop_official_to_be_sentenced_on_phone_jammi ng_charges/)

[Landrion]

So whats the score now? 5-1, Repubs in the lead?

As if, The Dems arent even close to catching up since Nixon. Oh that whole Lewinsky scandal thing was a pretty good attempt. But 5-1 is just ignoring years of Republican corruption pwnage. The Reps must be double digits ahead of the Dems in terms of corruption by now.

[Sean of the Thread]

As if, The Dems arent even close to catching up since Nixon. Oh that whole Lewinsky scandal thing was a pretty good attempt. But 5-1 is just ignoring years of Republican corruption pwnage. The Reps must be double digits ahead of the Dems in terms of corruption by now.

Remember Gary Condit? Jesse Jackson? ROFL MARION BARRY.

Rofl the KENNEDY's have OBLIVIATED the scoreboard... if you wan't to go into the past the score is even higher.

[CrystalTears]

But 5-1 is just ignoring years of Republican corruption pwnage.
Talk about ignoring years. Hi, Pot.

This whole competition thing of which side is more corrupt is just ridiculous. It's like trying to prove which tastes worse, liver or lima beans. You can try to cover up the nastiness but in the end, you're still essentially with two things that suck equally.

[Back]

Talk about ignoring years. Hi, Pot.

This whole competition thing of which side is more corrupt is just ridiculous. It's like trying to prove which tastes worse, liver or lima beans. You can try to cover up the nastiness but in the end, you're still essentially with two things that suck equally.

You can’t say they are equals. Thats the entire point.

If we were to wipe the slate clean at 2000 its pretty obvious that the republicans lead in bribery, misconduct, voting improprieties, misleading the public, and horrible mismanagement of just about everything.

[Landrion]

Talk about ignoring years. Hi, Pot.

This whole competition thing of which side is more corrupt is just ridiculous. It's like trying to prove which tastes worse, liver or lima beans. You can try to cover up the nastiness but in the end, you're still essentially with two things that suck equally.

I probably deserve it for forgetting my /sarcasm or /kidding flags.

I was fucking around.

Even if one party attracted more criminals or people who engaged in unethical behavior it wouldnt mean anything. Such people are not representative of either group's ideals. Theyre by and large criminals.

[Gan]

If we were to wipe the slate clean at 2000 its pretty obvious that the republicans lead in bribery, misconduct, voting improprieties, misleading the public, and horrible mismanagement of just about everything.

Nothing like an unbiased opinion to set us straight.

:whistle:

[Back]

Nothing like an unbiased opinion to set us straight.

:whistle:

Its the truth. Read the papers.

[Landrion]

Remember Gary Condit? Jesse Jackson? ROFL MARION BARRY.

Rofl the KENNEDY's have OBLIVIATED the scoreboard... if you wan't to go into the past the score is even higher.

Now Xyelin I think got the joke.

[Gan]

I do, even the erroneous articles in the papers like last Thursday's USA Today article about the NSA and phone records.

Cite me some specifics that back up your previous claim:



If we were to wipe the slate clean at 2000 its pretty obvious that the republicans lead in bribery, misconduct, voting improprieties, misleading the public, and horrible mismanagement of just about everything.

Keeping in mind that they need to be comparitive in nature so as to show us that indeed the Republicans lead in each of those categories.

[Daniel]

I like liver

[CrystalTears]

You can’t say they are equals. Thats the entire point.

If we were to wipe the slate clean at 2000 its pretty obvious that the republicans lead in bribery, misconduct, voting improprieties, misleading the public, and horrible mismanagement of just about everything.

How about you start with at least with 1993 when there was also a democrat in office. I'm getting dizzy from your spin.

[Parkbandit]

You can’t say they are equals. Thats the entire point.

If we were to wipe the slate clean at 2000 its pretty obvious that the republicans lead in bribery, misconduct, voting improprieties, misleading the public, and horrible mismanagement of just about everything.

If we were to wipe the slate clean at 2000. Great one. How convenient.. that was right when the shift change from Democrat to Republican.

Let's do something else. Let's take a look at the time period from 1992 to 2000 and see if any Republican can compete with good ol' Billy Clinton regarding all the corruption he was involved in.

Most politicians are corrupt imo. It's not what party they are affiliated with.. it's the process they are in.

[DeV]

Politics in and of itself represents a culture of corruption that knows little to no bounds. If we dug into the dark past of any given administration we'd undoubtely witness corruption at some level of policy making, enforcement, and so on regardless of party affiliation.

It's also safe to say regarding this current administration that the president retains a solid support system of Americans who strongly believe in him and his policies and tend to reject most if not all criticism with an aire of contempt.

I think Bush's shortcomings stem from his loss of credibility (among the 60% plus who dissaprove of him at the moment) and trust the public once had in him, Democrats included, especially surrounding 9/11 and its aftermath. His expansion of the powers of the presidency have also not been well received by Republican and Democrat alike.

All in all I agree with the point CT was making as far as comparion and contrasting and the fact that it does no good to do such a thing. The fact that many staunch liberals feel that Bush can do no right doesn't help matters any either. I think this administration is as fucked up as they come, but I don't have blinders on as to the fact that Democratic administrations in the past have suffered similiar downfalls (not on the level of Bush and Co. perhaps, which is debatable, but corruption all the same).

[CrystalTears]

I probably deserve it for forgetting my /sarcasm or /kidding flags.

I was fucking around.

My bad then. With people like Backlash asking us to wipe the slate clean and start with 2000 for all the corruption and it's :gawk: heavily Republican, I can't tell anymore who is being serious and who is just mental.