Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 12 years ago on April 26, 2012, 9:50 a.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
1 comments 4 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 7 months ago by gsw
2 comments 11 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 2 years ago by grapes
15 comments 2 years ago by gsw
12 comments 2 years ago by BrentWeirick81
The real fraud is having to choose between two bought out parties!!
Ain't that the truth !!
WTF??? You've got to be kidding me! Will that douche-bag Soros ever just keel over and die?!?!
Well thank you for that impassioned response! For me, this makes it clear as day that its all rigged. Since when can't a few people in their own counties/towns/cities count their own district's votes? The elite don't even care that their being blatantly obvious.
we should all be counting the vote
it should not be necessary to trust an outside source
This is not true. George Soros is not connected with SCYTL nor is he connected with Diebold. Personally I am not a George Soros fan,but he has no in volvement with these companies. In anyway. There is no proof he owns or even invests in either company. This was spread by a chain letter and Fox news aired a story on it. The only federal contract with SCYTL is for voting for US troops over seas. i almost bought it, but I came to my senses after researching companies owned by George Soros, the company page for SCYTL and Diebold. George Soros wasn't listed on either company.
I am surprised you even ran a story on this with out researching the sourse matteral.
Shatterstate From Voice of occupy wallstreet.
someone's got a count them
and another has to verify real people put them in a black box
[Removed]
This is pure nonsense.
Some manufacturer somewhere has to make voting machines. Before they are put into service, they must pass inspection and be approved by the local or state election boards. If they don't work properly or are found to distort the count, the fault is with the election boards, who are bound by law to ensure fair elections. No fraud can occur without tacit cooperation with state officials. If those officials wanted a distorted count, they don't need defective machines to achieve that result. That is true whether Soros, the government itself, or Mickey Mouse makes the machines.
This is a tempest in a teapot.
they ( dems) are gearing up for voter fraud.
Move along, move along, nothing to see here.
[Removed]
[Removed]
There need to be at least 3 Article V threads at all times in this forum.
Bumpity-bump! Have to agree with this! An obvious solution. All the cries for action in the world won't stop a thing. Is there any one physically ACTING on this or "ANYTHING" for that matter, than just more protesting?
"Bleating"-There appears to be a genuine sheep thing here. People cannot cognitively back actual functional strategy. Insterad it is social and its centered around a strange sensationalistic tendency and fear.
A basic inurement to reality while embracing an "anything goes" alex jones type generalization to justify pretending they are overwhelmed. Very little left brain dedication. Mostly emotional reasoning couched in minimalizations of any possible solution. Sort of, "Endless problems are easier, so we don't do solutions" kind of thinking.
Conditioned to react to only the icons promoted by material power while also dumbed down then mis or under informed, there is now a "milling" effect in the flock where incessant "bleating" is considered the most effective method to go about creating change.
The alternative to that nonsense is examination of strategy that is meshed into legal process. Article V. the right to "alter or abolish", the effect of "nullification" as a pre constitutional resistance to the federal, and murky extension of the English Crown.
This proposal for "Preparatory Amendment" does what some have proposed would be the only acceptable way to conduct an Article V, with a fixed number of absolutely constitutional amendments. In this case all that they do is return enough constitutionality to render the nation capable of conducting an Article V with the needed constitutional intent. This makes sense.
http://articlevconvention.org/showthread.php?33-Amendment-By-Layers-Of-Priority-Amendment-Package-Making-CONST.-Intent
OMG.... someone is allowed to privately own a company!!!
They are allowed to as long as its not Soros?
Lets see we 'outsourced' the voting counting to a company in Europe and its biting us in the ass.... surprised??
When will the whole Ayn Rand - private ownership trumps common good thing end?
if we vote publicly, the count would be transparent
Would it? Isn't that why we need a third party to do this?
Nibs, and punched holes not going through completely, dead people voting, did you miss the Al Gore election fiasco?
I meant if we all vote with our name,
the vote could be publicly counted
we could all stand by our vote
Maybe you could go into more detail.... voice recognition? How does one vote with our name. Names are supposed to be checked before you actually vote.
I'm against the death penalty
I just expressed my vote with my name
anyone can see that and if I am contact I will verify
that I am against the death penalty
that is how one votes with their name
I can respect opposition to the execution of criminals. May I assume you are also against abortion ?
no,
is Necrophagia your real name ?
Why is this an immediate assumption? Being Pro Choice, against the government intrusion and dictation regarding what goes on within a woman's body and her personal decisions, is not being pro murder or pro execution.
I guess he thought Matt might be against violently killing things, since he didn't like the death penalty.
You think Bin Laden should still be alive? Gosh, I think the death penalty is applicable in certain circumstances.
it's a question of how a civilized human should behave
Could you please elaborate on that? Do you or do you not support the execution of Osama Bin Laden as carried out last year?
I do not support the execution of Bin Laden
Okay. That's all I wanted to know. And as before, it's just more proof Obama is a neo-con.
Getting a guy who murdered 3,000 of our citizens makes one a neo-con? That's just ludicrous.
No, that alone doesn't make him one. Dropping bombs into Libya does, though. Keeping Gitmo open does. Expanding the wiretapping program does. continuing extrajudicial retention does. Allowing eminent domain abuse to continue does. Appointing racists to the supreme court does. Giving out corporate welfare while the poor starve does.
Do you support the death penalty/Bin Laden execution?
Then my apologies dude ....
No... I didn't do it, the site software does it after around 15 reply layers from the OP. I'm not the type, I really want to know what you think and how you arrive at your conclusions.
Just go up several layers and resume there.
For the record, I'm not in favor of the death penalty (and liking the fact that we killed Bin Laden does not require one to endorse the death penalty as a general rule). Acts of war are a special case.
How so? Bin Laden was not engaged in any acts of war, when he is on his knees, unarmed, begging for his life. If he is not a threat to someone's life, and you have the option to take him alive, you are officially making the choice to kill someone, exactly the same as giving someone the death penalty.
I have no earthly idea how you can condone this and be against the death penalty.
If it is any different than the death penalty, it is actually worse, because there was no judge, no jury, and barely an identification (I remind you, they did not even have positive ID until he was on the boat, and this was someone who had been away from society for years). Any time someone presents a threat to an innocent person, they are in a different category from the death penalty/Bin Laden execution. That is what you are describing as "acts of war", similar to someone in the US pointing a gun at a police officer and being killed in self defense. There is not even one shred of reason in claiming the Bin Laden execution could be construed as self defense.
Even so, why should we treat just as big of a sociopath (BTK, for instance), differently in punishment, merely because he did not have the means to kill as many people?
What makes Bin Laden different? Race? Wealth? Citizenship? (Opening the door to executing illegal immigrants) Number killed? If so, what is the threshold that allows the death penalty? If you believe lives are priceless, as I do, then killing one person is just as bad as killing a thousand.
You're lumping everything into the same pot, without making any distinctions, or analyzing the merits of each individual item, which I think is sloppy analysis. Yes, I do support what we did to Bin Laden, and I support what we did in Libya, I wish we would provide some sort of assistance to Syrian rebels, but at the same time, I do not support the existence of a Homeland Security Dept., or expanding the wiretap program (or for that matter, the continued authorization of the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.), much less torturing detainees, or any of that shit.
I have no problem making these distinctions (I think each of these items are very different things). When you blow up an airliner, or a skyscraper, and kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, I mean, that's exactly what we have a military for (and all people have the right of self defense, and if that's not self-defense, I don't know what is). I don't mind the argument that this should have been handled as a law enforcement issue, but my answer to that argument is, I don't think that approach was possible in this case. I mean, could we realistically expect the FBI to air assault into Afghanistan, and shoot it out with the Taliban? That's (from a tactical standpoint) absurd.
Obviously, lying to get us involved in Iraq to enrich your military contractor buddies, is (as far as I'm concerned) the textbook definition of a war crime (and Bush, Cheney, and everyone else involved, should be prosecuted). Spying on your own people, erecting an authoritarian police state, etc. (using fear of terrorism as a pretext, which is the worse sort of human exploitation), are things I also obviously oppose (and in no uncertain terms).
I agree with all of your charges against Bush. I just wish you would apply them evenly. I am anti war, so I don't support throwing bombs into Libya and escalating the violence, when we likely could have assassinated Khaddafi and ended much of the strife. Why don't you think O-bomb-ya has any military contractor buddies? Why do you think he went from ending Iraq and Afghanistan, to extending Iraq for three years, and Afghanistan for six? He did exactly what he could get away with, and no less, to fund his military contractor buddies. He cut the military budget. By one percent, just so he could tell naive people that he cut the budget and they would believe him.
I'm not sure if you're referring to giving Bin Laden the death penalty is what you are referring to as self-defense, but I understand that you are in favor of the death penalty and don't hold it against you, as plenty of people are. But what we did to Bin Laden was not self defense, not when he was unarmed and we could have taken him alive. That is akin to shooting a mugger in the back, not self defense.
don't know what a neo-con is
A neoconservative, a bomb dropping maniac like O-bomb-ya.
Whats to stop your name being listed several times?
confirmation
I don't mean to be picky about this, but what level of confirmation would be suitable? If you have 150,000,000 people voting, you know how much time it would take to confirm all of them just through telephone calls? What about absentee ballots?
the vote is public
people can vouch for each other
Thanks Tinkerbell.
them pirates is hiding behind the vote
Among the most sacred rights we have is the anonymity of our vote. It is the ultimate defense against tyranny. It is the ultimate defense against coercion.
the ultimate deference against tyranny is to resist it's orders
.
understanding what all people want is good place to start
No one,but no one, has the right to know who voted for whom. Anonymity is there for the protection of the electorate from reprisals. Those reprisals do not have to come from any government, but from the mob. It has not been uncommon for people who voted for the "wrong" person i the eyes of either his neighbor or at times from the government to have been found and murdered. If that's not coercion, nothing is. THe right to have my decision be a private one is among the few rights that the 1% has still not trampled in tis country, and I would fight with every ounce of of strength to keep it. It is a foundational principle and practice of the free exercise of democracy itself.
Indeed, anonymous voting is a basic foundation of democracy. Without it, the little democracy we have left, is gone.
the electoral should be capable of protecting itself from reprisal if it is the majority
it is the people duty to protect themselve and each other from reprisal
The electorate should not have to be required to in the first place.
Elections must remain free, and that means free from even the slightest potential for violence, and that means they must remain anonymous. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to know who I vote for unless it is MY CHOICE to tell you.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Well, in the real world, we try to separate wealthy donors from doing things that might influence elections or present a conflict-of-interest.... Some people(cough cough) don't mind money in politics though.
Hypocrisy. In the real world there is no separation of money and politics.
You're telling me Citizen's united doesn't matter because it's going to happen anyway?
And if you're calling me a hypocrite, I have no idea why.
I find hypocrisy in the statement, "Well, in the real world, we try to separate wealthy donors from doing things that might influence elections.." In the real world this isn't true. What are SuperPACs about, an $35,000 a plate fund raisers? You think people attend these without expectations of ROI?
Of course they don't. There is currently tons of money in politics, that's what OWS is fighting. You like the status quo?
If I did I wouldn't be here.
Exactly. We need to get money out of politics, just as I said. That includes potential conflicts of interest noted in this thread.
Soros is the man! ; /-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikwURyVQUkE