Bertie, I agree. The college was formed back when distance was an issue in a campaign. Another interesting part of it, in case of a tie, each state gets one vote. Also, each state's delegates are not bound by law to vote as their state's majority indicates. Like most things in government, it'll take a "collision" of sorts to amend the constitution.
Oh yeah........Woodbern...you go girl!
[This message has been edited by farmgate (edited 11-07-2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson: Isn't John Galt a character in one of those freaky Ayn Rand novels with the cult following? If Sannois styles her/himself after someone in Rand's strange little objectivist world, that would explain a lot.
My question is: who is Sannois, really? I have some ideas...
It's A French City, and not pronounced like it is spelled, Not That any of you Brilliant folks would know that. Try looking up Tolitarian in the dictionary, if you own one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think Hobson's point was that not only do your tax dollars support welfare mama's, even more go to support things like research on corn with fish genes, that mainly benefit the corporation that chooses to market that technology. Hell, my boyfriend is a taxpayer subsidy waste. He works for a government contractor. Guess what he did this summer? He supervised our military as they put non-hazardous barrels of water on a truck for 3 days. YOU paid for his beach front condo, a rental car, and a $1200.00 EACH WAY plane ticket b/c the government was too disorganized to plan better. He stood around for 6 hours a day, was paid for 8.
I believe Hobson's candidate, Nader, is against spending money like this, hence her post. So if you are really tired of your money being wasted on garbage, vote libertarian or Nader. Bush and Gore both love to subsidize corporations!
No, I think I did get your point. It was this: you do not like having the money you pay in taxes going to support people who do not deserve it. You characterize these people as lazy female welfare recipients who crank out babies to increase their payments. It is not clear whether you believe that ALL welfare recipients fit this description, but perhaps you see them as the majority.
Perhaps I was in a weird mood late last night, sitting at work with nobody else around, watching the tumbleweeds roll past my office...but Magnolia interpreted my post correctly. I grow weary that we all generalize and scapegoat the "welfare mother" when we talk about the waste of government funds.
Here are some of the other undeserving recipients of your hard-earned money: logging companies, mining companies and ranchers who use public land for pennies per acre (magnolia has mentioned this earlier); defense and space contractors who supply the hardware for boondoggles like Star Wars and $2000 toilet seats for the Pentagon; multinational agricultural corporations who receive ag subsidies...magnolia can probably think of additional examples.
Again, this is not a new idea to this thread, but I can't begrudge cutting a government check to some woman with a couple of kids to help them live a slightly less crappy existence, when much larger checks are buying homes in Aspen for officers of space contractor companies. I'd rather send my money to help people who are LESS fortunate than me, not people who are MORE fortunate.
And "stupid theological holes"? If you think that our beliefs are stupid or somehow deficient (because we don't share your personal interpretation of Jesus?), please provide an argument as to why you think this, rather than just calling us stupid. As you can see, there's no shortage of back-and-forth argument on this thread, so a little theology-based counterpoint won't hurt anybody here.
And hey, Sannois, I thought you were retiring from the thread! If not, please stop teasing us and tell us what a tolitarian is. I checked my 6-inch thick dictionary, and it's not there. C'mon, don't keep us in the dark!
[This message has been edited by hobson (edited 11-07-2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by farmgate:
Ms Rand's "The Fountainhead" is positioned between Edith Wharton's "The Age Of Innocence" and James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Farmgate - this is a purely non-argumentative, friendly post: You gave me a great chuckle this morning with this reminder. I'm a Joyce fan, but "Finnegan's Wake" is about the most impossible book I've ever read. Joyce's genius is in exploding the English language in ways it had never been before, but here is an example of the result: "The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humpyhillhead of humself prumptly send an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes..." And on it goes just like this for 700 pages. I always thought it must be a joke on both Rand and Joyce that these novels were parked together on the list.
I too am voting largely Dem today, and I also enjoyed the Fountainhead immensely. Have not read Atlas Shrugged yet.
And vis a vis biotech crops--you have no idea what is going on with that industry. Be very vigilant on this one folks, more has gotten past you than you can imagine, and the government subsudies are the least of it. The approval for biotech corn is not being pulled, and in fact you probably eat some every day. The strain involved in the taco shell scare is approved for animals, not people.
But then, approved is a very interesting word, since there are NO mandatory government testing required of these products. Do you understand that? The government is taking the word of the companies that this stuff won't affect us. What is their proof? Oh wait, we don't have any because the products have not been in the marketplace long enough to test things like long-term effects and genetic migration. How do you like being a guinea pig?
I have seen this stuff close up. You cannot imagine how prevelant and how underhanded this technology is. But heck, I'm sure a giant multinational conglomerate cares about me and the environment more than profit. Right? Right? RIGHT?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pacificsolo: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobson: Pacificsolo, I have to agree with you. I resent paying taxes so that freeloaders like the Honeywell and Raytheon CEO's can sit on their lazy butts and just wait for those NASA contracts to come rolling in. Why don't they go and start their own darned space program, anyway? What's space exploration done for us, besides bring Gore-Tex to the masses? We sure didn't need to pump billions of dollars into a wasteful program just to get high-tech winter clothing. And why does ADM need millions in subsidies with MY tax money? I'd rather throw my paycheck off a bridge than pay for one more single undeserving ear of bio-engineered corn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic, ...
I think you REALLY missed my point...no, I'm CERTAIN you missed my point! What kind of random tangent was THAT?!
You sweet innocent, you! Hobson understood you perfectly and responded with some delightful sarcasm.
I enjoy reading your posts, but there is a certain naivete evident in most. Would that we all could preserve our innocence and sunny outlook on life. I understand that your religious convictions help simplify life for you, and that is wonderful. Sophistication and broadened insight will come with time. Hopefully, cynicism will not.
[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-07-2000).]
Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.
Just wanted to say that I have found this thread to be very enjoyable reading! Thanks to everyone for being (mostly) polite and having a (mostly) intelligent discussion.
I am very interested to see how this election turns out. Supposedly voter turnout was very impressive here in Maryland this A.M. It would be nice to see a lot more people vote this time around! There's a positive-sounding story on cnn.com about turnout so far:
A few things here...Atlas Shrugged was great, but...it's fiction. The fine imposed on George W. also included losing his license. Furthermore, not only is it illegal to hold office in TX with a conviction on your record, but turning in a jurors survey with portions left blank, signed, and then claiming an aide who didn't have enough information filled it out now has the judiciary interested in speaking with George W. Which would have ordinarily been enough, but his comment over the weekend in Florida, while campaigning in a Senior Center, that he was admitting his guilt now "because that's what an honest American does" (Source: NPR Radio) tipped the balance. Must have been quite a mouthful of crow to swallow, 14 years AFTER the conviction! To all of it I can only say...
Go, Jo! Go!
Sincerely, A Connecticut resident, an Independent voter, and a Yalie.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chief2: Furthermore, not only is it illegal to hold office in TX with a conviction on your record, but turning in a jurors' survey with portions left blank, signed, and then claiming an aide who didn't have enough information filled it out now has the judiciary interested in speaking with George W. Which would have ordinarily been enough, but his comment over the weekend in Florida, while campaigning in a Senior Center, that he was admitting his guilt now "because that's what an honest American does" (Source: NPR Radio) tipped the balance.
I hadn't heard about the jurors' survey before this. Isn't such a survey a "sworn, under penalty of perjury" document in every jurisdiction?
[This message has been edited by Inverness (edited 11-07-2000).]
Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.
This is all very interesting. Let me hurry with a disclaimer to the effect that I am not a lawyer. That being said, here is my understanding of things: (a) Bush was convicted of drunk driving which may or may not have been a felony at that point in time in the state of Maine (lawyers on this BB please check this); (b) Bush was arrested and convicted (though whether of a felony or misdemeanor is not clear-see point a);(c) Bush's record was "expunged" after a 16 year period during which there were apparently no other incidents; and (d) Bush and/or his "representative" did leave that portion of the jury form blank.
Here are my questions:
1. What does it mean to "expunge" a record? Does it mean that it is as though the offense never existed? I suspect that a lot of nonlawyers believe that that is the case.
2. Is the DUI a misdemeanor or a felony conviction? Was it so considered at the time of Bush's arrest 24 years ago?
3. Is it the case that one cannot hold office with a felony conviction? At the State level? At the federal level? What is the source (e.g., U.S. Constitution) for this prohibition?
I'd REALLY appreciate it if some of the attorneys on this list would respond.