Canceling the US elections?

[MetalMilitia]

Voting official seeks process for canceling Election Day over terrorism

WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.

``I am still awaiting their response,'' he said. ``Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion.'' Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm

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

Why? What is the point of canceling elections if there is an act of terror? How does it make us safer?

I can understand maybe extending the voting deadline in the area directly affected by the terror attack, or providing alternative polling places.

But what possible purpose is served by canceling the elections outright... except of course to keep the current regime in power?

-MM- :crs:

[VegasRonin]

If I'm not mistaken, all a President has to do is declare a State of Emergency, and he can then cancel/postpone elections.

[MetalMilitia]

But why put new regulations in place now... the only thing I can even think of, is that it would be used at the 'slightest' risk to cancel / postpone the elections.

You know how much I mistrust the government, this to me looks like one last way to grab power, should something happen.

"Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America, he said."

Is this the solution? Canceling elections? Stopping something you don't want to happen in the world of politics? In the wake of the attack Spain's voters rejected Jose Maria Aznar's (who supported the US war in Iraq) ruling Popular Party in favor of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialists (pulled troops out).

Maybe the US will be faced with a drastic situation like that, only this time the other side will stay in power.

-MM- :crs:

[VegasRonin]

Presidents Create Their Own Emergency Powers
Past presidents - principally Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt - by exercising their powers in time of emergency, have expanded their authority as necessary to meet emergencies they faced. They have, in essence, made the law in times of crisis, not always in the manner envisioned.
Lincoln launched the Civil War unilaterally, without Congressional action, following the secession of seven Southern states. Only later did he obtain Congressional approval. His critics called him a dictator. But he got the job done that had to be done.
Wilson asked for and received near dictatorial powers from Congress when attacks by Germany against American ships and submarines plunged the nation into World War I. He had to raise and equip a large army to fight on foreign soil. To do so, he demanded and received unprecedented new power and authority.
When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, the world-wide Great Depression had reached its depths. The new President promised action, and during his first 100 days, Congress gave him what he needed to enable him to use federal powers to rout the Depression and rescue every sector of the economy, as well as state and local government, from economic ruin.
Later, following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which forced the United States into World War II, FDR's exertion of his presidential powers would far exceed anything Wilson or Lincoln had done. Through the strength of his personality, Roosevelt lead the nation from that day of "infamy" through battles in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Pacific to total victory.
While FDR continued to ask Congress for what he needed, he gave them no choice as to whether they would accede. For example, in demanding that Congress repeal provisions in the Price Control Act (prohibiting ceilings on certain food products), he told the Congress: "In the event the Congress should fail to act, and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility, and I will act." And he reminded the Congress: "The President has the power ... to take measures necessary to avert a disaster which would interfere with winning of the war."
We've been blessed with strong presidents in times of national crisis. They were men who demonstrated a capacity for leadership, and men who acted undemocratically, but only to preserve our democracy.
We've been fortunate, for the distinction between a "constitutional dictator" and a strong president is remarkably thin, if not non-existent. As Writ columnist Michael Dorf has noted, there are few checks on our Commander in Chief.

[stewey]

I think the fact Spain citizens switched their vote after the terrorist attack was pretty weak-hearted on their part. They are going to run away from terrorists? They are going to give in? Might as well call them France.

[Conservative Front]

Look at spain, Can you imagine if the terrorist swung the Vote to Nader, or even worse the Green Party :eek: .

[Emerald_Dragon]

i don't believe Spanish citizens switched their vote, as you are apt to believe.

I read/heard it was pretty even, until then. When their people learned they were mislead to war, they firmly voted in an anti-war president. I guess when you stick your nose where it doesn't belong, it can get singed, and that's how they saw it.

Would you support a war knowing that it would generate more terrorists? a war based on lies? i commend them [the Spanish] for choosing not to be involved. i pity us and am wary of our future, for being there.

[Emerald_Dragon]

anyways, that terror strike in Spain had a reverse affect. I believe it was meant to galvanize them to be pro-war, esp since Al-Qaeda were responsible. Get people pissed enough to ante-up more support.

If you were a terrorist and didn't want an enemy to garnish more allies or gain more support from their allies, would you make more enemies?

[VegasRonin]

anyways, that terror strike in Spain had a reverse affect. I believe it was meant to galvanize them to be pro-war, esp since Al-Qaeda were responsible. That sounds like you believe it wasn't Al Qaeda? So I guess the U.S. committed the terror strike and made it look like Al Qaeda?

[humanhybrid]

Look at spain, Can you imagine if the terrorist swung the Vote to Nader, or even worse the Green Party .__________________
Lets hear it for the green party!!!! yahooo What a wonderful place this would be!! Oh well I got too exited, sorry! good day :rolling:

[Conservative Front]

**Theres been several documents retrieved from Al Qaeda operatives that showed there attack in spain was intended to swing the vote to the socialist party. Even whats "insert Prime Mins Name" admitted they swung the vote.

and I'm not sure he lied to the nation, this is the first time i've ever heard of this not to mention that the Spanish Troops where Pissed off because they weren't able to finish there job there.


**Source: Foxnews,CNN,MSNBC,Denver Post

---end response to Emerald Dragon---

Yeah if David Cobb got elected, not only would we withdraw from the war, we'd destroy capitalism, tear down buildings to protect the enviroment to extreme degrees give up are Weapons Demilitarize have Social Welfare for lazy slobs that don't wanna work,etc... and I really wish I was kidding about this but I watched there campaign on CSPAN not too long ago and Jim Green, and the mayor of i think its like Newak New york proclaimed everything I just said. I didn't wait around long enough to here David Cobb speak considering they where already being hypocritial by hosting there convention in a capitalist Milkawuke Airport...

(oh and I'm assuming you're response was sarcasm)
---end response to Humanhybrid---

[humanhybrid]

Spanish Troops where Pissed off because they weren't able to finish there job there.
Please elaborate! and entertain us with why they were peed off!

[stewey]

I have several friends that live in Spain, and they claim that it did effect the polls and results. However, it probably depends who you ask.

[Marajadex]

If you were a terrorist and didn't want an enemy to garnish more allies or gain more support from their allies, would you make more enemies?Sounds like a case of "My enemies enemy is my ally".

[dutchie]

All the idiocy you yanks spout around here on both Spain and France is pure evidence that you don't know SHIT about Europe. Take it from a European.

As I said earlier: We live in sovereign states, all having the RIGHT to chose in favor of - or against any action the US proposes us to participate into. Stop whining or calling names when a country does not want to. Spain actively supported the US in the Iraqi matters. SHAME ON YOU for calling them cowards (because that's the general opinion on the French), when elections MIGHT have been influenced - and I am NOT saying they were, I am convinced they indeed weren't - by a horrific terrorist attack. Spain suffered for chosing the side of the US. Spanish people DIED.

And what a COMPLETE idiot you are for saying thank God they did not chose for the Green Party.... Do you deny ANYONE the right to chose ANYTHING? Be a friggin conservative if you want, but don't be the filthy stain on their flag with your lack of intelligence. Respect is a virtue in the eyes of ALL political colours.

[prezhorusin04]

Nice Post Matt..

Hopefully due to Mike Moores films, and the works of others, an American Terrorist attack would be too suspicious against Bush at this time..

But it is all theatre. :dead:

[MacRasta]

The Spanish are used to terrorist attacks, for many, many years. Don't believe that this 1 attack made a big difference in the elections.

El Mac

[DarkAce]

If you were a terrorist and didn't want an enemy to garnish more allies or gain more support from their allies, would you make more enemies?

That would make sense, if you didn't apply it to Spain's situation. Spain's people were already torn on the Iraq situation. A terror attack on an undecided nation, one who isn't as powerful military wise and even more promised terror attacks if they didn't withdraw, brought A LOT of resentment towards the current spanish government.

When the situation is assessed, you can either spend more money by sending troops into battle and risking your civilians to another terrorist strike like promised or you can save the trouble and just pull out.
Spain chose the party that chose the latter.

But we've already discussed this and looked at it before in another thread some time ago. No need in rehashing it all over again. Use the search function.

[Bigsky770]

. . .IMHO, WAS the aftermath that was the Spanish Elections. Though it is true, that the oppossing parties here were roughly equal, the so-called 'right' DID enjoy a 'minimal' lead.
. . .Though it causes many discomfort in the thinking here that Spain had caved at a most crucial moment in the determination of their future, it cannot be denied WHAT the outcome of the "Spanish Elections" were, In that there exists the perception that the world as a 'whole' may not seek enjoyment in this that there may now indeed be the issue whereas motivated, organized , well-funded terrorist strikes can NOW PLAY A ROLL in the direction of a respective governments political future and armed with this knowledge can there exist any doubt that they will not exercise similiarly planned ops. in the future? If there be the chance of success on the part of a terrorist, the temptation here to 'guide' a country into a like-mindedness ideology is very disturbing, to say the least.
. . .The pull-out from Iraq was very poorly timed, in that it was too-close to the time-framing OF the terrorist-acts that had occurred; Had there at least been a period of time for the Spanish to 'draw back' into safer rolls within the country of Iraq, this could have been accomplished and in the mean-time would most probably have aided them in salvaging their reputation, (face-saving, if you will) in that their presence would have been maintained.
. . .In closing I will note here that the 'most dangerous precedant' was not a lesson that was completely lost on the Spainiards; They were WISE in at least applying the full-force of their Police and investigative units which were mobilized as they had never been before to capture and ensnare the perpetrators of these acts and bring them to justice. I would hope only the best for Spain in the future, and further that terrorists at large would take heed in the knowledge that their misdeeds will not go unpunished. My fear is that "History" though, may paint a very grim picture of this, not only for Spain, but as well for the world community. . .Time will be the ultimate judge here. Just my thoughts. . . :vbroll:

Joe (Bigsky770)

[Conservative Front]

What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't saying people shouldn't choose there political affairs nor was I denying that party too anyone but too me the green party is anti-american America was based around capitalism not socalism. If you agree with it more power too ya I however denouce the Green Party because they are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum then me I however didn't say people shouldn't support it I would just be upset if the Green Party got power well... that wouldn't happen I guess...

---end response to dutchie---

[stewey]

Yeah, the timing was awful on Spains part. It will show the terrorists that "Yes, you can influence an election to go the way you want it to by attacking." I mean within a month and a half they had all the troops out of Iraq? Yeah, that looks like you got a tough backbone there. I don't care that he promised it beforehand, it still looks like you are caving in to terrorists demands when you remove them so quickly and so suddenly. This is going to look bad, but: Al Queda 1, Spain 0.

[dutchie]

I could go with you on the timing being bad notion. Still, like I said, countries have the right to either chose in favor or against certain decisions. Who are we to judge their decisions?

CF, I did some tracking of your posts throughout the board. You are a dedicated follower of certain ideas that go completely against my beliefs and convictions.
So far, so good. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and I respect that. But you come to a thread, post a short sentence in which not a single nuance is being made, and after that you react in a bit of a grumpy way, because we did not see the deeper meaning behind your oneliner.

If you want to make a point AND you want the meaning of it to come across, you'd better put some energy into EXPLAINING. Which of course does not mean that I agree with your POV.

A good example is Europe, where capitalism and socialism go hand in hand for the better part of a century now, and we're not doing bad at all. In our minds, a pluriform government, where a lot of political views come together, brings sound judgment into the management of that country, and legislation that takes a lot of views on the subject into account. In your mind there is black (socialism) and white (capitalism) while in my mind the fact that there are many shades of grey is a good thing.

Oh, and if capitalism would destroy the environment, and render this big ball uninhabitable in the end, I would think twice before deciding that the forces of economy should always prevail over the natural resource where ALL is ultimately is coming from. You might think all lefties are dummies. In fact, from my experience they are generally people that do not just enjoy living their own lives, but think deep about the future of their offspring and that of the rest of the inhabitants of the Big Ball. Yes, I know your stance on the environment. I would urge you to spend a year in and around Shanghai. Maybe this would open your capitalist eyes. You might call yourself a conservative. Conservation of this earth is however not on your agenda.

Now let's see if you're able to say something useful and respectful about my POV.

BTW, saying that the Green Parties are anti-America, is just plain stupid. Again a nuanceless remark. (I'll leave it up to you decide if I meant that with respect to MY or YOUR remark)

[Defiant Noquisi]

Look at spain, Can you imagine if the terrorist swung the Vote to Nader, or even worse the Green Party :eek: . The best contribution Ralph ever made to politics.....

"There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship."

[MetalMilitia]

FBI, CIA warn of US terror threat

Top officials from the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Department warned members of Congress that al-Qaeda could try to launch new attacks in a bid to influence upcoming US elections, a congressman said.

They are pounding this pretty hard.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/08/1089000263818.html?oneclick=true

With Bush trailing in the polls, who BENEFITS from disrupted elections?

http://www.nbc4columbus.com/news/3506441/detail.html

-MM- :crs:

[Bigsky770]

Could quite logically be implemented, but Matt, do you think that further, (in light of the controversy that was the last presidential election), is it possible for this to be a catalyst for civil unrest? If this is the case, then it follows as well that this is where 'a police state' could occur. . .

Neither of which are pleasant prospects. . . . :ohmy:

Joe (Bigsky770)

[Conservative Front]

Alright, I agree Ill do a better job of explaining myself. I didn't mean to sound grumpy or anything.

I see where you are coming from where you accept Socalism with a dash of Capitalism and I respect you're opinion on it. However In my opinion Capitalism is the only true way for an economy to truly survive. Commonwealth (which would be communism I know) can't work people receiving items from the government as essentials. I believe people need competition and more of a will too sicced in life. now I know I was refereing to Communism there (socalism and communism are almost hand-n-hand I know the differences though) and one more point Socalism to me gives the government too much power and makes it too big Id prefer a Much smaller less taxing government. Because in socalism the only person getting rich and the one at the top of the chain.

Too me the earth belongs to us, we don't belong to the earth I believe in whats good for the people not the planet and if its good for the people it will eventually be good for my children. and as for the lefties being dummies? no I don't view lefties as dummies at all infact I have alot of Respect for people that have strong beliefs in there own opinion and as long as they stick by it and act on it even if I disagree with them they will always have my respect at the end of the day. but anyway's I don't believe in destroying all of the environment I still think we need to keep some of it alive and growing because I do realize that with out an ecosystem there is no life. So yes I believe in Development before Environment BUT we can't destroy everything.

oh, and I didn't mean to come off as brash and harsh, I was just stating my opinion on the green party I didn't mean to disrespect you or anything but now that I've read you're post and I see that this is all politics and nothing personal I have the utmost respect for you and you're POV i may not agree but I respect you're position.

---end response to Dutchie---

I was listening to Nader on the Sean Hannity show the other day and he came out sounding more like a Marxist He want's to help everyone instead of teaching everyone to help themselfs.

---end response to defiant---

[prezhorusin04]

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/275357.shtml

[stewey]

IF a terrorist attack did happen here pre-november 2nd, I think it would push Bush in the polls moreso than Kerry, which Al Queda would not prefer.

Also regarding the article above, Tommy Franks is retired now, so I'd take it with a grain of salt. I don't think the odds are too good of Al Queda getting their hands on a WMD either.

[dutchie]

Dear Conservative Front,

Your views on the contence of socialism and communism are not from this century, but stem right from the dark ages just after the 1917 revolution. Did you really think something like that still exists? Yeah, maybe in North Korea.


I see where you are coming from where you accept Socalism with a dash of Capitalism and I respect you're opinion on it.I said "capitalism and socialism go hand in hand. First we have a leftwing government, then a rightwing. This continues in an endless dance. Goes to show where the longterm trust of the people go to.

Commonwealth (which would be communism I know) can't work people receiving items from the government as essentials. I believe people need competition and more of a will too sicced in life.Lord have mercy!! Your spelling is truly awful, I had to read your sentence 4 times to make anything from it. "sicced"?? SUCCEED!!!
Commonwealth = A Group of states (i.e. the British commonwealth) so WTF do you mean?? I too believe people need competition and a will to succeed. What does THAT have to do with socialism working less well than capitalism??

now I know I was refereing to Communism there (socalism and communism are almost hand-n-hand I know the differences though) and one more point Socalism to me gives the government too much power and makes it too big Id prefer a Much smaller less taxing government. Because in socalism the only person getting rich and the one at the top of the chain.What a load of rubbish!!! Present day socialism has got NOTHING to do with communism. That is what I call sheer anti-left BS! Who told you they go "hand in hand"? Do you really think I would even WANT to be compared to a communist?!? Communism is a very naive notion. More power? Whatever gave you that idea? We have elections every 4 years, just like you guys. Only difference: our candidates hardly do any campaigning. We, the people, decide on our government in a very democratic way. We get what we elect. In socialism the only person getting rich is the one at the top of the chain (crude translation of your gibberish)?? It is exactly the other way around. A completely capitalist society does NOT protect its working capital (the people doing labour), has no regard for the less fortunate and the only reason that they tax less, is with respect to the investmentclimate of the industry (coupled to a better income for the leadership of that industry). In my country, we are taxed 52% (yes, this may stun you) because our partly capitalist society understands that all of its members will - someday - grow old and less healthy, and a lot of its members will at any given moment be unemployed, unable to work etc. etc. We realize that this could happen to ANYONE, ANYTIME (no this is not a Martini ad). So our taxing system is based upon solidarity[/], which is IMO not a dirty word. Of course the capitalist side of things is firmly represented by the stimulation of free enterprise, maintaining a proper infrastructure for industry and transport etc. etc.
In your comment you show to have a somewhat naive POV on our European society, as if we are all under the spell of unnessecary socialist pressure. In fact, the socialist aspect works fine as a watchdog against excessive enrichment of the top of the economic foodchain, ultimately keeping [i]everybody well taken care of and happy, and the wealthdistribution well within reasonable and sound limits - another brick in the foundation of a healthy economy.

Too me the earth belongs to us, we don't belong to the earth I believe in whats good for the people not the planet and if its good for the people it will eventually be good for my children.If you would be able to lift your camera of vision onto a cosmic scale, you would be astonished about the extremity of our frailness as a planet. Are we owning the world to turn it into a wasteland eventually? We rule the earth in our minds, while in fact we will not outlast the coming 5,000 years (which of course is less than a millisecond on a cosmic scale) due to our abuse of the earth's resources. You show to have a shortterm vision - you think no further than your direct offspring. This earth is not capable of auto-cleaning the millions of tons of poison our industry dumps into the atmosphere every year, anymore. The damage done can not be undone anymore. The notion that we own this earth was very probably shared by the dinosaurs. Where are they? You see the earth as an exploitable object. "Good for the people" what is that?? Chopping down our rainforests for timber, while in that same forest may reside the cure for a big chunk of all our diseases, is that "good for the people"? Polluting our oceans, so our children will mutate by eating the poison that is in the fish? Artificially stimulating growth in livestock, so our children's immunesystem gets ****ed up from eating large quantities of anti-viral and ant-bacterial substances, not to mention the growth hormones - is that "good for the people"? Who's getting rich here?

but anyway's I don't believe in destroying all of the environment I still think we need to keep some of it alive and growing because I do realize that with out an ecosystem there is no life. So yes I believe in Development before Environment BUT we can't destroy everything. Phew, what a relief. "...keep some of it alive..." How much then? 5%, 10%?? Can't you see the horror hidden in your remark? It brings images of leafless, lifeless forests and stinking, dead seas to my mind.

You can think whatever you want, it's a free world after all. But I urge you to reconsider your ideas. I just can not believe that they have grown in your head spontaneously - who is that evil genius that told you that we "own" the world, that we can "destroy most - but not all" of the environment, that a capitalist society works BEST for the economy?

I can't help it: there are 2 emotions here: I feel sad about the fact that people as young as you can be blinded to the horrific truth about what is happening to this earth, and there's hope that one day you WILL have children and you WILL see that they aren't too happy with the inheritance we're now preparing for them, namely an irreversibly damaged habitat.

[stewey]

If you would be able to lift your camera of vision onto a cosmic scale, you would be astonished about the extremity of our frailness as a planet. Are we owning the world to turn it into a wasteland eventually? We rule the earth in our minds, while in fact we will not outlast the coming 5,000 years (which of course is less than a millisecond on a cosmic scale) due to our abuse of the earth's resources. You show to have a shortterm vision - you think no further than your direct offspring. This earth is not capable of auto-cleaning the millions of tons of poison our industry dumps into the atmosphere every year, anymore. The damage done can not be undone anymore. The notion that we own this earth was very probably shared by the dinosaurs. Where are they? You see the earth as an exploitable object. "Good for the people" what is that?? Chopping down our rainforests for timber, while in that same forest may reside the cure for a big chunk of all our diseases, is that "good for the people"? Polluting our oceans, so our children will mutate by eating the poison that is in the fish? Artificially stimulating growth in livestock, so our children's immunesystem gets ****ed up from eating large quantities of anti-viral and ant-bacterial substances, not to mention the growth hormones - is that "good for the people"? Who's getting rich here?

While I agree we will not outlive the Earth, I do not think we will be gone in 5000 years. Your visions of the environment are quite GreenPeaceish, and if you are reflecting capitalism is the cause of that (not sure if you are), you are quite mistaken. Plus, like it or not, we will never be able to cure all diseases or find the cures in the rain forest. As we discover cures, the bacteria and virii become immune to said cures and mutate. Also, new viruses and bacteria are discovered every year. Bacteria and virii will outlive us, and we will always be able to "Get sick".

Also, your views on our capitalist society here in America are slanted. As you said in your other post, you know what it is like to live in Europe, we know what it is like to live in America. Lots of people here do not like to be taxed. When you have a population in the hundreds of millions, there are alot more mouths to feed. Having the government "look out for everyone" is very hard to do when there is 300 million people. Much easier to "teach a man to fish" and feed him for life than to "give a man a fish" and feed him for a day. Personally, I prefer low taxes. I see no incentive to working hard at life and making more money when more than half goes to the government (in america it is 40%(?) or so for most part for income tax). Why should I spend 9 years in school to make $100,000 a year when I could make $50,000 and only end up 50% less? (100k* 50% = 50k, 50k * 50% = 25k). I personally work my ass off for schooling for my major (Computer Science & Math). I see kids that take a "half-ass" major like philosophy that don't even go to class most of the time, and knowing I would have half of my money going to support their slacker ass is not a good feeling.

[dutchie]

While I agree we will not outlive the Earth, I do not think we will be gone in 5000 years. Your visions of the environment are quite GreenPeaceish, and if you are reflecting capitalism is the cause of that (not sure if you are), you are quite mistaken. Nope, I did not say capitalism is the cause of that: my point is that thinking along the lines CF so eloquently put down, will lead to the demise of the environment. "Greenpeaceish"?? What a strange remark... Do you really think I can not think for myself??

Plus, like it or not, we will never be able to cure all diseases or find the cures in the rain forest. As we discover cures, the bacteria and virii become immune to said cures and mutate. Also, new viruses and bacteria are discovered every year. Bacteria and virii will outlive us, and we will always be able to "Get sick".Did I say we will find a cure for all diseases? And you're right, viruses mutate and new viruses are crea... erhm discovered every year...

Also, your views on our capitalist society here in America are slanted. As you said in your other post, you know what it is like to live in Europe, we know what it is like to live in America. Lots of people here do not like to be taxed. When you have a population in the hundreds of millions, there are alot more mouths to feed. Having the government "look out for everyone" is very hard to do when there is 300 million people. Much easier to "teach a man to fish" and feed him for life than to "give a man a fish" and feed him for a day. My point: I am in a capitalist society too... And yes, it works FINE. Hundreds of millions of mouths to feed here too... I can not quite follow the direction you're trying to take with that..

Personally, I prefer low taxes. I see no incentive to working hard at life and making more money when more than half goes to the government (in america it is 40%(?) or so for most part for income tax). Why should I spend 9 years in school to make $100,000 a year when I could make $50,000 and only end up 50% less? (100k* 50% = 50k, 50k * 50% = 25k).Your math is flawed. At equal taxrates you'd ALWAYS end up with 50 % less!! (100k-30%=70k, 50k-30%=35k = still 50%)

I personally work my ass off for schooling for my major (Computer Science & Math)......
I see kids that take a "half-ass" major like philosophy that don't even go to class most of the time, and knowing I would have half of my money going to support their slacker ass is not a good feeling.And those who study cosmology? Or Arts? You would stop all arts education instutes from using up your precious money? Or literature? No money in that!!

[stewey]

Your math is flawed. At equal taxrates you'd end up with 50 % less!! (100k-30%=70k, 50k-30%=35k = still 50%)
Well, I worded it wrong. I meant the total difference is a lot more, but for some reason forgot to put that. Like at 50%, youd make 50k more, while at 30% youd make 35k more. I would much prefer the 15k/year more.


And those who study cosmology? Or Arts? You would stop all arts education instutes from using up your precious money? Or literature? No money in that!!
Well, I do agree that it would be nice for them to get decent money if they go to college, but I do not agree that people who slack off with an easy major should get as free rides from the government via taxes. When I am taking my classes, I average 40 hours a week doing homework and such. My friend, a philosophy major at a "harder" school, averages under 5. I would not feel it is fair if he would be as "equal" as me after graduation(although I know I will make a lot more than him). I can see with high taxes it still being the same ratio, but due to many years of lower taxes, it really would hurt me in the long run since there is still so much money "out there".

[dutchie]

Hm. IMO people that go for philosophy, the arts or politicology do take that subject out of sheer interest and not with loads and loads of money in the back of their head. There's a lot more "courage" involved in that, than choosing a study that most probably will make your fortune, don't you think? And - regardless of money - IMO culture is a VERY important part of our identity. The fact that the renaissance was so packed with philosophers, has done a LOT for the science - and economics - of later centuries.

A simple question: If your government would guarantee that your (hard earned and studied for) income would continue indefinitely for let's say 70% at the moment you would be completely incapacitated and unable to work for the rest of your life, would you consider to pay 5% more tax in return? Just curious.

BTW, pity you just took it upon you to adress the more simple replies I put to your post, and left the harder ones alone... :vbroll:

[stewey]

Yeah, im at work now so only reading shorter stuff. I am a late night computer techie.

Anyways, yeah I think I would pay that 5% extra, and my friend that is a philosophy major is one because he basically cannot pass any other class since he parties every night. I love computers and would be a computer science major even if the money sucked, but I will admit it is a hard major and lots of work.

[dutchie]

Anyways, yeah I think I would pay that 5% extra, and my friend that is a philosophy major is one because he basically cannot pass any other class since he parties every night. I love computers and would be a computer science major even if the money sucked, but I will admit it is a hard major and lots of work.

Ah, You would... Now.. would you be willing to pay another 5% extra, if the government would guarantee you to continue paying your income when you would suddenly and without your fault become unemployed?!? (Assuming you have a wife and two kids, and live in a cosy little, but heavily mortgaged house)

BTW, you're not serious when you're generalizing your friend into the complete part of the population that starts a "soft" study, now are you?

[stewey]

Unfortunately, yes I am serious. He is a friend from HS, but he is lazy and irresponsible.

About the taxes, probably no, I wouldn't want to pay that. I trust myself with my money moreso than the government. I think it is safe to say we can just agree to disagree :D

[MetalMilitia]

Osama Personally Plotting Attacks To Disrupt Nov. Poll: US

1. WHY would terrorists want to disrupt the elections? With both Bush and Kerry favoring war and supporting Israel, the elections are totally irrelevent from the point of view of the supposed terrorists.

2. WHY would a terror attack in, for example, Atlanta have any effect on the elections being held in California, Alaska, or Hawaii?

3. Isn't this supposed threat to the elections a very good reason to go back to paper ballots?

4. Don't the "terrorists" win if the elections are canceled?

5. Isn't George Bush the only one who really banefits from canceled elections?

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=070804103910
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

My other question is : Ashcroft keeps saying with certainty, that they are 75%, or 85% ready to launch an attack, and now we find out 'Osama' is behind it? We pump billions of dollars into this, and we can claim that we know who is doing it, and when... but we can't find a 6'5 foot tall arab on dialysis? All we can do is watch and listen?

-MM- :crs:

[RavenWhitefang]

Last night on one of the news networks, they were talking about how Ridge was recieving info about possible attacks around election time on US soil, and that he isnt raising the levels as of yet.....How Convenient.

[Conservative Front]

Perhaps, but Communism,Marxism, and Socalism still fall under the same principle (source: Dictionary of Political Partys V.1 & 2) and yes they have changed over the centurys but the common principal of the partys remains the same (According The Rise and Fall of Socalism) so from what I've read including communism.com, RedandAnarchy there basic principals remain the same.

Conservatism or a Right-wing faction of government allows people to be whoever they want too be and Id find it harder in my opinion to trust an extreme large "giving handouts style of government".

Opps... On sicced the I just hit the spell checker to quick and it spelled sicced sorry. Communism was the word derivative of Common Wealth so basically It means "The Government would provide the essentials while you worked for a low wage" now FarLeft governments don't do this too this kind of extend anymore but the prinicpals are the same for example raising minimum wage to 10.00$ for a Fast Food hamburger flipper.

Socalism, would be the step up from Communism not quite as far left but still enough. Socalism promotes Small Business over Corporations, Union ownership of sole proprietor. and Communism would instill much of the same just to more extreme degrees. Having elections ever 4 years doesn't rule out more power I was referring to the size of the government and such programs as Social Welfare. and Grassroot Democracy isn't really the best form of government Of Course citizen should choose there canidate but things like Electoral college is better because Direct or Grassroot would open the door to a wide range of possibility such as witch hunts etc... The government is still getting rich off the business owner through taxation. If a Private business owner only wants to pay his employee's 5.15$ Per hour (min wage in America) then so be it He opened his business and should be able to treat his employees however they want if they don't like they can go somewhere else. Plus with high tax rates means Product prices will increase if where taxed say 80% then the price of a Mcdonalds Cheeseburger could go up to 5$ simply because they would have to compensate for the tax increase and how much are you willing to pay for a Cheeseburger at Mcdonalds? If someone opens a successful business with money out of there own pockets why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the fruits of there labor? Shouldn't they be allowed to get rich off there own business? The government shouldn't be able to tax someone higher because they make more money then the average joe that's absurd if they worked hard to get where they are then they deserve to be where they are.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the ecosystem, but from what i've read the damage isn't as severe as you say it is. I don't really condone dumbing of Toxin waste in oceans but I think strict environmental laws would decay are economy and put many people out of business. Do I want my grandchildren mutating from fish no. but at the same time I don't want them living in a world so strictly controlled by nature they have no value of life.

Id leave enough of the world a live to survive but I wouldn't go as extreme as say the EPA would. I do understand the environment is essential to living.

nobody told me how to think. Through my own research and reading I've develop my opinions based off of things i've seen read researched it was never about one person.

I'm not blinded by the truth that complete destruction of the environment would render our planet uninhatbital however It's still a proven fact there are more trees on our earth then 150 years ago. I don't think the situation is as bad as you put it.

---end response to dutchie---

[MacRasta]

That is a BIG improvement!

Mac

[Conservative Front]

Thank you, Mac Rasta. =)

[Sirius]

If the terrorists attack, and we cancel our elections, then who won?

[substand]

If I'm not mistaken, all a President has to do is declare a State of Emergency, and he can then cancel/postpone elections.


couldn't see the video... wasn't there when i looked.. in any case, i think you may be mistaken... at best the waters are "murky" on the situation... at best we would need to establish why the DHS would even inquire if what you mention there is true- as in, it would be unnnesary for them to ask the DOJ what legal procedures are.

[substand]

If you were a terrorist and didn't want an enemy to garnish more allies or gain more support from their allies, would you make more enemies?

you mean like, by cutting off innocent people's heads or flying planes into buildings full of innocents? Of course that is precisely the terrorists' problem. They need to gain sympathisers for thier cause, but it is difficult in that they cannot attack military or those with direct involvement because they are too weak- instead they must attack innocents and accept 1 of 2 outcomes:

1) HOPE that attacking innocents will cause people to be too afraid to go against the terrorists' cause

or

2) incur the wrath of everyone because they are attacking innocents.

[substand]

We live in sovereign states, all having the RIGHT to chose in favor of - or against any action the US proposes us to participate into.

Sovereign except for deciding the size of bananas ... sorry, just a joke... you are absolutely correct though. I dont think he meant that EU (and its countries) should bow down to the US (at least I hope he didn't)... but as others have mentioned, regardless of whether Spain wanted to withdraw troops before or after the elections, the fact remains that it APPEARS as if the terror attacks worked in changing opinions (which may have been the terrorists point in only looking for the appearance) - the appearance, whether or not it is true, helps to legitimize and encourage further attacks. Its precisely why most countries "will not negotiate" with terrorists. As soon as they do, it encourages terrorists to continue their activities. But again, others have mentioned this and I only repeat their points.

I've also hated it when mad libs call other countries' help in the war in Iraq "nothing" or "so small it won't make a difference." Thats ridiculous. They may have small troop commitments (esp compared to the US), but they gave us support- and even if its only "moral support," we need/ed it. Thier sacrifice, to me, is much appreciated, even if by some people's standards it is small. They are not cowards, but I feel like his point was that the people looked like cowards for voting the other party. I don't think so- they did thier part, and they did what they wanted. I applaud them for it, but again, as far as the terrorist aspect goes, I also think they helped do terrorist bidding, even though I don't think at all that that was thier intention. It just happened that way thru appearances and circumstances.

Its not like the Spaniards planted trees so the Germans could march thru the shade on Champs Elysees ... =)

[substand]

Too me the earth belongs to us, we don't belong to the earth I believe in whats good for the people not the planet and if its good for the people it will eventually be good for my children.

Well, perhaps whats good for the earth is good for the people?

There was a statement above that (from whom I dont recall) that was something about capitalism (or its excesses or something) destroying the environment. Capitalism and environmentalism are not incompatible. It is possible to recognize that spilling oil (even if its on your own property) will seep into my property- therefore the need for some environmental controls... however, its entirely possible that some people want to go completely too far.

and dutchie, i agree with you on many of the points you've made. however, some of the ones about the environment, while I agree with some, there are others that are completely unsubstantiated, even if i agree with them on principle. (ie, "in fact we will not outlast the coming 5,000 years (which of course is less than a millisecond on a cosmic scale) due to our abuse of the earth's resources. You show to have a shortterm vision - you think no further than your direct offspring. This earth is not capable of auto-cleaning the millions of tons of poison our industry dumps into the atmosphere every year, anymore. The damage done can not be undone anymore.") For every source I've seen that agreed with a similar view, I've also seen plenty that disagree with it (on both ends, they were "scientific").



Ah, You would... Now.. would you be willing to pay another 5% extra, if the government would guarantee you to continue paying your income when you would suddenly and without your fault become unemployed?!? (Assuming you have a wife and two kids, and live in a cosy little, but heavily mortgaged house)


I know this question wasn't directed towards me, but I personally would rather have the 5% income. I take my view from the fact that we have Social Security and Medicaid, which currently take over 15% of our income (less DIRECTLY from us, but many economists agree that workers nowadays would get what the "employer" pays "for us" (as well as my boss has told me he would pay me what he pays "on my behalf"). Regardless, even considering only what we directly pay over our lifetimes, mostly only people who make 15k/yr or less "make money" on social security. That is taking for granted that poor people will make on average only 15k/yr thruought thier life, and that those same people live long enough to reach "avg age" (which also of course, doesn't happen on avg. So mostly rich and mid class people "make money" on social security- and only because they tend to outlive the avg lifespan. Should they only live to the avg, they lose a ton of money. So in that case, and in others- I would rather retain that 5% and save it for myself for hard times, knowing I would be even better off than the government could make me.

Of course, thats assuming I'm smart enough to manage my own money and not waste it. I realize there are many who currently dont do such things. However, I wonder how many would do it if the government hadn't broken their legs, handed them a crutch, and said, "look, if it weren't for us, you couldn't walk!"



Anyways, yeah I think I would pay that 5% extra, and my friend that is a philosophy major is one because he basically cannot pass any other class since he parties every night.


Philosophy easy? Perhaps. Not quite as easy as say, business major... but thats only my opinion. I have great respect for people who want to pursue academic/artistic careers. I wouldn't force everyone in the country to subsidize thier "art", but rather I commend them. There is no reason artists can't hold normal jobs and do art on the side (or become a doctor and teach). Its good to have culture, but there is no reason they cant do thier things and make money at the same time.

As for comp sci, I can honestly say I'm a drunkard (if its not obvious), and it never hindered me (except for a couple of missed finals which I got to retake), and I don't think it was hard completing my comp sci (plus I finished with poli sci degree too (yes 2 degrees, not 1 degree 2 majors)). Maybe I'm not lazy. I've always been one on personal responsibility, and when my drinking does hinder me, I get over it and refuse to allow it to. I might go to bed at 6am and get up at 9, or i might go to work at 3 am... but i always get my work done and i always find time to visit the pub and watch the astros... maybe i'm lucky to have an English boss who understands, condones, and lives the drinking (or lazy as some might say) lifestyle... but he also worked for John Moores (owner of the San Diego Padres currently, among other things) (and other Houston huge tech guys) before starting his own company... and he always tells me stories of guys not coming in until 2pm, but they work late, and stories of going for liquid lunch in pubs... and the fact is that we get our work done... and we're lazy computer scientists.

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

[substand]

After responding to (and encouraging) all the off topic stuff, let me return to the original point (sorry, but all the "off topic" stuff was all too hard for me to pass up on without giving my holy opinion):

The talks between DHS and DOJ are preliminary "what ifs." They want to know the legal repercussions of postponing elections, even if it is in some places and not others, or if it is across the whole country.

as for mm:



1. WHY would terrorists want to disrupt the elections? With both Bush and Kerry favoring war and supporting Israel, the elections are totally irrelevent from the point of view of the supposed terrorists.


Given the choice, I think its clear Osama would choose anyone besides Bush. Maybe Kerry supports the same positions as Bush when it comes to things terrorists are concerned about, but I guess that depends on which Kerry at what time you are talking to.. This is the same guy who attacks bush for being on vacation a quarter of the time he was president, but "John F. Kerry missed 72% of 119 recorded votes held in 2003 on issues President Bush had taken a position on according to Congressional Quarterly. " Also, he wants to "talk" and "forge new alliances," with terror supporting nations... of course that was a few months ago, and he has since "clarified" his position on them.

[MetalMilitia]

This is the same guy who attacks bush for being on vacation a quarter of the time he was president, but "John F. Kerry missed 72% of 119 recorded votes held in 2003 on issues President Bush had taken a position on according to Congressional Quarterly.

Good point! Not to mention he was "too busy" to read the new terror reports.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

-MM- :crs:

[Defiant Noquisi]

Too me the earth belongs to us, we don't belong to the earth I believe in whats good for the people not the planet and if its good for the people it will eventually be good for my children. What you fail to recognize is that people cannot control the weather, the plates shifting and the turn of things in the universe. Youve made a mighty arrogant statement saying that we dont belong to the earth. I suppose toxic waste is good for your children eh? We borrow this planet from our children, not the other way around. We dont own this planet, we are supposed to be stewards of it.


I was listening to Nader on the Sean Hannity show the other day and he came out sounding more like a Marxist He want's to help everyone instead of teaching everyone to help themselfs. And your point in directing this to me? You are really good at posting things without explanation. If you are trying to prove a contradiction have at it. People should learn to help themselves! However, some must be pointed the way and in that I see no reason to not help them find it. We most certainly dont need to hold their hand through the entire process. If they dont get it they can live on the streets. To those lazy people on welfare; just dont cry about your sorry ass luck if you arent willing to get up and do something about your predicament.

Im in total agreement that some form of theatrics will be resorted to in regards to the upcoming elections, considering the monkeyshines the current administration has resorted to.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Conservatism or a Right-wing faction of government allows people to be whoever they want too be and Id find it harder in my opinion to trust an extreme large "giving handouts style of government". According to your own posts, you do not follow that kind of thinking at all. You forgot to add that those groups of people allow people to be whoever they want as long as it falls into some kind of Christian dichotomy and the people think just like they do. Otherwise, its a free-for-all partisan attack that the conservative and right wingers are not innocent of themselves. Take for instance the current administration. Many civil rights are being trounced upon by it yet not a squeek out of you. Likewise, would you feel it neccessary to close the polls if there is a threat of terrorism? Or would that only be if Bush were behind?


I'm not claiming to be an expert on the ecosystem, but from what i've read the damage isn't as severe as you say it is. I don't really condone dumbing of Toxin waste in oceans but I think strict environmental laws would decay are economy and put many people out of business. Do I want my grandchildren mutating from fish no. but at the same time I don't want them living in a world so strictly controlled by nature they have no value of life. There will be no "life" without this planet, nature, environment, etc. however you want to put it. You make this seem as though you want nature reined in and made to conform to you will. What you dont understand is that the very essence of how nature works is how it cleans itself from the toxins and poisons we dump in and on it daily. Yet you seem to be supportive of this.

Interesting that you arent supportive of alternative energy sources that would be better for the people and the environment of the world, and would also tie in with marketing and profits for those who engaged in those types of businesses. You are just as brainwashed as those in the oil business.


Id leave enough of the world a live to survive but I wouldn't go as extreme as say the EPA would. I do understand the environment is essential to living.Bahahahaha!!!! You dont say!


I'm not blinded by the truth that complete destruction of the environment would render our planet uninhatbital however It's still a proven fact there are more trees on our earth then 150 years ago. I don't think the situation is as bad as you put it. Please keep researching and use more than what is just socially acceptable materials in your research. You may find the "real" truth isnt in the government sponsored materials provided for sale by your local college or bookstore nor neccessarily in the daily newspaper. When you become more educated on how the environment really works, you may not be so quick to exploit it.

There may be "more" trees than 150 years ago, but how many of them are older than 50 years now? How many of them provide the neccessities for nature and man? You have read a fallacy. What you dont understand is that in the areas the trees have been planted used to be a collective ecosystem where ALL the plants worked together as a unit. By cutting the trees the system was destroyed, not just the trees. Are they replanting the many other types of vegitation that would be required to "restore" the forest? NO

Planting the trees, while a kind gesture, is not enough to restore the balance required to help them grow again comparable to what was cut.

I certainly hope that there is no convenient "excuse" for delay at the polls nor "martial law" declared. Every post you make drives me to near anger in wanting Bush and others that think similar to you out of office.

[substand]

edit: i just realized how WAY off topic this post was so i deleted it =)

[Conservative Front]

I'm not saying I support dumbing toxic waste in the waters, I merely suggested the facts that we own the earth the earth doesn't own us. And if industry money and production is creating jobs and economic booms then that would be far greater for my children then demolishing are planets and ridding the world of toxins.

I wasn't saying everyone should be christian, I was saying that America would be a better place (In my opinion) if christian values and morals where up held by citizens, I don't expect everyone too be christian nor would I want them too be I just think we'd be better off as a whole if we had some kind of centralized values and morals.

I know there wouldn't be life without nature,environment,etc... But I just don't see a collapse of our ecosystem due to the volume of "toxins" we pump in the air right now.

I'm not for or against alertnative energy sources. but I do say if it ain't broke why fix it? If our current energy sources are meeting demand then why make a hesitate costly change?

Alright, Ill do more research but which do I choose to believe? Environmentalist wackos or Right-wing oriented books? you see the problem? I think ill have a tough time finding something non-partisan on this.

---end response to defiant---

[substand]

I'm not saying I support dumbing toxic waste in the waters, I merely suggested the facts that we own the earth the earth doesn't own us. And if industry money and production is creating jobs and economic booms then that would be far greater for my children then demolishing are planets and ridding the world of toxins.

And what if that industry money and production that creates jobs and economic booms also destroys the earth so that it is not livable for our children? WOOHOO, we've got jobs and no one to fill them because everyone is dead and earth is inhabitable... what then? I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with the others, but at least you should take that scenario into account and address it.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Cf, Subs makes a good example. Also, what I see is you thinking of the immediate future without looking farther down the road. Thats where finding the balance comes into play and its not impossible but not easy either.

I think Ill start another thread on this because it looks like weve got some really good debate on this and we are way off topic from the elections.

In any event, the elections should not be postponed period. :Bott:

[Defiant Noquisi]

Ive opened it gentlemen.

http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?p=43907#post43907

[ENFORCER]

b]Patriot Act Gives Bush Power to Cancel Elections
by CONSPIRACY PLANET[/b]


Political analyst Al Martin writes that the legal mechanism and contingency plan for canceling US elections is already in place.

"The contingency plan in question is the Continuity-Of-Government plan (COG), first drafted in 1949 under the Truman regime shortly after the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic weapon," Martin explains.

In addition to COG, "Bush has this power under Patriot I Act with the expansion of his authority under the War Powers Act of 1947, since, it should be remembered, a declared state of national emergency already exists in the United States at present," Martin writes in his column, "Canceling US Elections: It’s Easier Than You Think."

"The biggest story of the past week has been regarding the possible postponement or cancellation of the US presidential election," writes Martin, author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider." "This is actually much more sinister than the White House is making it appear.

"According to the release by the White House and the US Election Assistance Commission, the White House is supposedly just asking the Election Assistance Commission to work with the Attorney General and establish a legal mechanism, wherein George Bush could change all 50 state constitutions, as well as county and municipal election laws in one fell swoop -- in the event it became necessary to postpone the elections.

"The sinister part is that Bush, in the post-Patriot I environment, already has (as we’ve said a hundred times before), the legal authority to postpone or actually temporarily cancel the elections. These are two different legal mechanisms.

"The only reason Bush would need the underlying state constitutions and county and municipal election laws to be changed is if he intended to invoke his authority to permanently cancel elections.

For the rest of this story, subscribe to Al Martin Raw.com: Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence, just $6.95 per month for online subscription.

Click here for more information on subscription Al Martin Raw.com: Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence (http://www.almartinraw.com)") log on and subscribe to AlMartinRaw.com: Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence (http://www.almartinraw.com)

* AL MARTIN is an independent economic-political analyst with 25 years of experience as a trader on NYMEX, CME, CBOT and CFTC. As a former contributor to the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, Al Martin is considered to be a source of independent analysis for financially sophisticated and market savvy investors.

After working as a broker on Wall Street, Al Martin was involved in the so-called "Iran Contra" Affair as a fundraiser for the Bush Cabal from the covert side of government aka the US Shadow Government.

His memoir, "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider," (http://www.almartinraw.com) provides an unprecedented look at the frauds of the Bush Cabal during the Iran Contra era. His weekly column, "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway," is published weekly on Al Martin Raw.com, which also publishes a bimonthly newsletter called "Whistleblower Gazette."

Al Martin's new website Insider Intelligence: The Real Story Behind Tomorrow's Financial Headlines (http://www.insiderintelligence.com)) (http://www.insiderintelligence.com) will provide a long term macro-view of world markets and how they are affected by backroom realpolitik.

SOURCE: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=49&contentid=1414