Ableton Forum

TD - these are all good points, I do agree with you in this regard. You certainly don't have to tell me about Diebold! :-0

I think the problem is that in this day and age, it's just to easy to subvert any system. Yes, electronically a hacker could do major damage, but that's not to say that the online system wouldn't come with a way for checks and balances. There could very well be a "hard copy" implementation in addition. Even some of the electronic machines gave a ticker printout receipt.

As for mass mayhem, entire counties of voter's votes got wiped-out (for all intents and purposes) in the Bush-Gore election. It can happen en mass either way, though I agree electronic systems carry an easier large-scale risk factor...

I know this is a Ron Paul thread, but some may be interested in this interview with Kucinich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Lr17usifg

Rep. Kucinich explained how the proposed Bill, now pending before the U.S. Congress, via its benchmarks, will provide for the privatization of Iraqi oil. It requires the regime in Iraq to pass a law called, "The Hydrocarbon Act." If they refuse to do so over a billion dollars in reconstruction funds will be blocked by the Bush-Cheney administration, he claimed. This measure, which Rep. Kucinich characterized as "blackmail," would permit multinational oil corporations---many based in the U.S.--to exercise control over the Iraqi oil. The Democratic leadership in the Congress is giving its explicit support to this legislative device. Unless the scheme is stopped, Rep. Kucinich predicted, we will be looking at an Iraqi War "going on forever!"

knotkranky wrote:Yup, Kucinich rocks too. I like your Paul, Kucinich / Kucinich, Paul dream team. Now there's a mandate.

This would never work...

even though the two of them agree on some things - they're on opposite ends of the spectrum

Paul's position is to reduce the role of government to absolute constitutional minimiums.

Kucinich stands for all kinds of wealth redistribution (ie. socialized medicine) that would actually require the government to increase in size.

If you were a fan of either candidate - you probably wouldn't want the other present to cancel each other out.

r

ps. the preceding was not intended to dog one candidate or the other - but to demonstrate differences between the two

Yes, point taken. it's pure fantasy, but those two dudes have real civil service passion. I just think together they would have the ability to put a shorter leash on corporate power. They have much in common concerning helping people, albeit different ends of the stick.

+1 for the Ron Paul ticket. Good guy there.

Hillary scares me.

+1 for Ron Paul!! He is the man!!
IMO, he is the only candidate on either side that takes the threat to the Constitution seriously. He recognizes that at this point, the US is under heavy attack from within, and most people don't have any idea about the Constitution, and have no principles about it whatsoever. Some of his ideas may seem harsh, but that is only because the US has slid so far off track that it hurts to get back on.

The one big issue I have with Ron Paul is that he is fully behind the idea of privatization of just about everything, and therefore fully against gov't run social programs. This is always a big divide between "liberal" and "conservative" ideology, but as with most things in life there needs to be a happy medium. Both sides will screw you, that's a fact. Two of our biggest failures are health care and education; one private, one social, both fucked.

I want a smaller gov't too, but not to such an extreme where big corporations are funding our education system. What will health class be like once it's sponsored by McDonalds?

Why can't we develop social programs that actually work, by implementing the best and brightest for the job and paying them on an equivelent scale as a CEO of a corporation? Want to improve public education? Start teachers at $60K/yr instead of half that - what, is their job not worth that much? But no, instead we overfund the military and even then have to borrow money from China to bring "freedom" to Iraq.

But I digress. While I do like Ron Paul, he's of the mind that "government is bad". Government is not bad, it's just badly run - mostly through incompetence, bribes and cronyism..."Heck of a job, Brownie!"

jamester wrote:....Government is not bad, it's just badly run - mostly through incompetence, bribes and cronyism..."Heck of a job, Brownie!"

+1 Well said.

Good question re: Ron's views on privatization...I'll look into that.

sadly - I dont think he looks smily and charismatic enough

IMO what will likely happen is what has clearly happened the last couple of times - those of you who actually care and have a brain and realise how bad the BUSH admin are will back somebody who has no chance of actually getting in or not vote out of disillusionment, and a fuckwit will get in again

sorry for the bleak cynical words

Personally I am a Romney guy. His attitude is entirely productive, just like his business history. Despite what many people in this forum feel about anything corporate, the fact is that people who know how to get things done are hard to come by. He is a hugely respectable individual...just read some of his bio and there is little that people could criticize.

Why the hell does voting not matter. It only doesn't matter if you don't vote. I am so tired of all the self-defeatist attitudes on this forum. You do yourselves no favor my subscribing to these kinds of views...you only give others more power. I am not trying to judge anyone on this form, but it's exactly this kind of attitude that limits yourself....whether you are conscious of it or not.