02 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Have someone read it slowly to you; you obviously don't get it.
There you go again.
Madison's whole point behind no.10 was that a political and economic union between the states would prevent warfare between the same. Now does that sound familiar?
Madison was saying that people have a tendency to divide into factions mostly based on their economic self-interest. He was saying that a democracy is not sufficient to protect the rights of minorities and that power had to be diffused. If anything, applying that on a global level would reach the OPPOSITE conclusion that you do.
02 Aug 05
Consider this passage in respect to your "globalization will make everything better" argument:
"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other, and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculities of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties".
James Madison
Federalist 10
Note that he is using an 18th century definition of "property" which included not only physical possessions but also learned intellect and other intangible "property" possessed by the individual. One size don't fit all is his message, and no matter how much you try to force people to think the same there will be factions which will support their ideals to the max. What lesson does that impart to you relevant to the current world situation?
02 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe reason the recounts couldn't be completed by the certification dates is because the four counties who were doing the recounts took four days off for the Thanksgiving weekend... There was nothing preventing them from completing the recounts prior to the certification other than the fact that they decided they wanted the four days off... gambling that Harris wouldn't have the guts to actually follow the law...coming in just one of the four days would have given them the time they needed...you'll recall that they completed their recount only a day or two after the results were certified...
The law also required recount procedures in close elections like this one. The recounts could not be completed by the certification dates;.
The Sec of State can delay certification, but usually will only do so in the event of a natural disaster... nothing prevented the libs in those four counties from completing their recounts, other than laziness...
btw, even CNN admited that Bush won Florida anyway... you can read all about it at:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
The article begins:
Florida recount study: Bush still wins
Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.
Even knowing ahead of time how many votes they had to 'find' for Algore, they still couldn't do it...
And before you go off on the butterfly design of the ballots, the Florida Supreme Court had ruled in previous cases that it is up to the person doing the voting to search for the name of their candidate and mark the ballot appropriately... the ballot design can only be challenged before an election takes place... but Democrats are in charge of ballot design in those counties anyway...
02 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSheesh you guys at it again. No1, you are very educated, that is quite clear, and i also agree with alot you have to say, but dont be so aggressive, attacking and grumpy. It sounds like you've got sand in your crotch and youre a 5 mile walk from the nearest shower. Sure youre smart, but no need to talk to everyone on a high horse.
What an incredibly bizarre reading of Federalist no. 10!!! Forget it - read a comic book!
02 Aug 05
Originally posted by ShonkytonkHe's frustrated with so much ignorance and stupidity of late by his countrymen, I too, if I were American, inevitably would become very frustrated, frustration turns to anger, then turns to insults. Heck, I get frustrated just trying to EXPLAIN ONLINE OVER AND OVER AGAIN to the average Joe Republican American who doesn't seem to understand ANYTHING! I'm surprised No1 even takes the time with the lenghty factual explanations, there used to be a time I did this, but now I see there is no point, facts/truths, seem to be overated to Americans nowadays and don't mean much of anything.
Sheesh you guys at it again. No1, you are very educated, that is quite clear, and i also agree with alot you have to say, but dont be so aggressive, attacking and grumpy. It sounds like you've got sand in your crotch and youre a 5 mile walk from the nearest shower. Sure youre smart, but no need to talk to everyone on a high horse.
02 Aug 05
Originally posted by DeadBeSwallowedNow where have I seen this before?... Zat you, mateulose?
He's frustrated with so much ignorance and stupidity of late by his countrymen, I too, if I were American, inevitably would become very frustrated, frustration turns to anger, then turns to insults. Heck, I get frustrated just trying to EXPLAIN ONLINE OVER AND OVER AGAIN to the average Joe Republican American who doesn't seem to understand ANYTHING ...[text shortened]... point, facts/truths, seem to be overated to Americans nowadays and don't mean much of anything.
02 Aug 05
Originally posted by TheBloopThat is a very interesting story ruined by the fact that it is completely untrue. The certification date in the Florida election law is one week after the election or November 14, well before Thanksgiving. Katherine Harris wanted to certify the election on that date, but Gore's lawyers had already gotten a decision from the Florida Supreme Court extending the deadline to November 26 in line with the recount statute. On November 15, Katherine Harris filed suit to stop the manual recounts going on in three counties. She was unsuccessful. Two counties finished the recounts over the Thanksgiving Day weekend, one was 90 minutes late for the 5 PM Sunday "deadline" and Harris attempted to refuse to accept over a 1000 votes (effectively disenfranchising those voters) and the Miami-Dade election commission had voted on November 22 not to go ahead with the recount. The facts are at: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php Please actually try to check them before spouting nonsense.
The reason the recounts couldn't be completed by the certification dates is because the four counties who were doing the recounts took four days off for the Thanksgiving weekend... There was nothing preventing them from completing the recounts prior to the certification other than the fact that they decided they wanted the four days off... gambling that Ha ...[text shortened]... tion takes place... but Democrats are in charge of ballot design in those counties anyway...
I do not know and basically do not care who would have won the Florida vote if it there had been a prompt recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. I didn't vote for either candidate. I do know that if the initial results had shown Bush behind he would have taken the same legal steps as Gore did and Gore would have taken the same steps as Bush actually did. The difference is then right-wingers would have been screeching how every vote MUST be counted in a democracy. Neither of the big money parties has any principles when it comes to getting into power; but stop pretending that there is a principle involved here for you right wing nuts because they clearly wasn't and isn't.
02 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauder"Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
Have someone read it slowly to you; you obviously don't get it.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source."
Madison, Federalist X
This snippet highlights three general points about Federalist X:
1. The statement, "political and economic union between the states would prevent warfare between the same" fails to express Madison's argument.
2." Madison was saying that people have a tendency to divide into factions mostly based on their economic self-interest" expresses Madison's point accurately.
3. Madison was wrong. A religious sect has "degenerate[d] into a political faction" in our day, and they have significant influence over the course of the nation's elections today.
02 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen the parties reversed, and the courts intervened for the Democrats, as they did in Washington State's last gubernatorial election, the "principles" each party lives by alters the argument. The Republicans alleged that too mant votes were counted that were cast by felons whose voting rights had not been restored. However, the felons that testified in court claimed they had voted for the Republican, harming their case, which nevertheless was dismissed on the merits (actually the lack). It was a bit more complicated here, however. The Democrats sued first to demand a recount because the note was too close. The recount changed the results of the first and constitutionally mandated second counts. Then the Republicans sought to exclude votes counted in the third count (the recount ordered by the court after the Democrat's lawsuit).
The difference is then right-wingers would have been screeching how every vote MUST be counted in a democracy. Neither of the big money parties has any principles when it comes to getting into power; but stop pretending that there is a principle involved here for you right wing nuts because they clearly wasn't and isn't.
In short, Republicans don't want every vote counted when the roles are reversed. They just want to win.
02 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOK I checked it out...
That is a very interesting story ruined by the fact that it is completely untrue. The certification date in the Florida election law is one week after the election or November 14, well before Thanksgiving. Katherine Harris wanted to certify the election on that date, but Gore's lawyers had already gotten a decision from the Florida Supreme Cour ...[text shortened]... rinciple involved here for you right wing nuts because they clearly wasn't and isn't.
" November 21, 2000
• The Florida Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rules that that manual recounts may continue and that the totals must be included in the final results. Court sets as deadline for certifying the election Nov. 26, a Sunday, or early Nov. 27."
Thank you, The Florida Supreme Court just re-wrote the election laws.
Or did they merely "interpret" November 14th to actually mean sometime around the 26th or 27th?
Later...
" November 26, 2000
• Harris denied a Palm Beach County request to extend the 5PM deadline to turn in completed vote totals. Palm Beach misses 5 p.m. deadline by 90 minutes and left 1,000 ballots uncounted.
• Secretary of State Katherine Harris certifies Bush the winner in Florida, but ongoing legal action by both parties keeps the election outcome uncertain.
• The official results are 2,912,790 votes for Bush; 2,912,253 for Gore, a margin of victory of 537 votes."
November 26th was AFTER Thanksgiving (which fell on Nov 23)... the Palm Beach Recounters took the weekend off until Sunday. That's why they missed it, and this was the incident that I was referring to. So they took three and a half days off instead of four, sue me...
I remember seeing a couple of intereviews on the local news of poll workers in P.B. County saying that it wasn't fair that they had to choose between the recount and spending the holiday with their families... poor babies...
I appreciate the link to that web site though... brought back a lot of great memories.