?

Log in

No account? Create an account
For everyone who's pulling for Kerry on the "A.B.B.A." band-wagon... - A Suburbs Boy Living a Country Life — LiveJournal [My Flickr Photos]
March 9th, 2004
10:41 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
For everyone who's pulling for Kerry on the "A.B.B.A." band-wagon...
John Kerry on online taxes and privacy: From Computerworld IDG, 5/22/01 -- "Creating a fair playing field for both online and off-line businesses will require some level of Internet taxation and the ability by online companies to gather personal user data for advertising purposes, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said today." He may have supported the moratorium--but I'm afraid that was only softening us up for the real surprise he has in store for us.

Then again, maybe we should put Kerry in the White House...at least that way he'd not be in the Senate where he can cause real damage to the country.

--Pete "A.B.B.A.E.K." Thomas

(25 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:catdeville
Date:March 9th, 2004 07:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Better Kerry than Bush...

and hopefully those who voted for Nader last time with the idea that there was no difference between the Republican and Democratic platforms will have wised up and choose *not* to throw the election to Bush *again* (in case it's close).

Never Thirst,
cat
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 9th, 2004 08:33 pm (UTC)

Hell, I hope...

(Link)
...a third party candidate "throws" the election, even if it is Nader...

Until the duopoly figures out they're out of touch, we're going to keep getting more of the same regardless of whether there's an elephant or a donkey in the White House.
[User Picture]
From:catdeville
Date:March 9th, 2004 10:00 pm (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)
darlin', the "duopoly figures" aren't going to "figure out they're out of touch" simply because some minute minority votes for a 3rd party candidate. Not when there is no chance of them actually *loosing* the election as long as the president is actually elected by the electoral college and not the popular vote.

if you *really* want to get their attention, you need to get enough independents into *Congress* to actually get the Constitution amended to rid us of the electoral college. *Then* a 3rd party candidate might have a chance to do something besides drain votes from a viable candidate. (And, ironically, they *always* drain votes from the candidate who is closest to them on the ideological spectrum, thus aiding the candidate who is *farthest* away from them on the ideological spectrum.) As far as I can foresee, that probability is generations away unless something critical happens in our favor in the next few years.

I'm sorry, Brother... I thought I was in harmony with the Libertarian ideology until I saw their actual platform and how horridly impractical it was. But even this Aquarius has to admit that the world is not ready to become what it "should" be yet. And acts of consciousness which have the consequential repercussions of placing people in power who will take us *farther* from that goal rather than closer to it are counterproductive.

Hypothetically speaking, when presented with the choice between the lesser of two evils one may, of course, make the philosophical choice to refuse to choose. Pragmatically speaking, refusing to choose can have the consequence of empowering the greater of the two evils to reign unopposed. History (and not just recent history) shows us that's an unwise choice.

Granted, changes in reality begin in the realm of consciousness... but they manifest physically.

Never Thirst,
cat
From:(Anonymous)
Date:March 9th, 2004 10:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:steelwngs
Date:March 10th, 2004 08:12 am (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)
10% Nolan<<< Who's this?
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:25 pm (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)
My candidate of choice, the likely winner of the Libertarian nomination.
[User Picture]
From:catdeville
Date:March 10th, 2004 01:03 pm (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)
This needs to be done at the state level, as the constitution delegates how the electors are selected to the states.

which is why it would take a Constitutional amendement to change it, however I disagree that it "needs" to be done on a state level.

I am one of those folks that believes that the electoral college, which had very valid reasons when the Constitution was framed, is no longer relevant, nor helpful, nor good. The whole idea of "stateism" and "nationalism" (for that matter) are no longer healthy attitudes. They are seperatist and divisive.

We no longer live in small communities which are largely unaffected by what goes on in the rest of the nation. It is no longer a days ride to the nearest township. heck, it's no longer a day's "ride" to get from continent to continent. I can leave San Diego today and be in England by tomorrow.

We are a now individual citizens of a global village and the sooner that we start realizing that, the sooner things will get better. People vote as individuals, and the individuals who vote with a regional mindset are getting to be more and more of a minority today. How many people do you know who still live in their state of birth? How many of them have never lived anywhere else? How many are affected only by their regional culture?

Even within my own family, which on my mother's side is pretty insular - being TN tobacco farmers, that insulation begins to disipate at my generation and in some ways even before (Two of my mother's brothers moved to Michigan, and another to Texas.)

So I don't believe that the electoral college is necessary to prevent "a few states" from electing a president. Indeed, the way the electoral college is set up now and with the way that the states do assign their electors on a "winner takes all" system, we have more of a situation where "a few states" can elect the president than if we simply had a poplular vote. And thus we saw in the election of 2000, where Florida was the determining factor in the election - a system with a flawed election process overseen by the "victor's" brother.

Never Thirst,
cat
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:27 pm (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)
I'd be thrilled with a "world government," so long as it by-and-large left me alone and simply requested my voluntary contributions to its upkeep in exchange for performing the most needful of governmental functions, and providing the maximum autonomy possible to individuals, communities, municipalities, so long as they refrained from warfare, theft, and the like upon their neighbors and fellow global citizens.

There, that's my platform..
[User Picture]
From:catdeville
Date:March 10th, 2004 05:49 pm (UTC)

Pete's platform...

(Link)
well, hell!

Pete for Emperator!

TAG!
cat
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 06:47 pm (UTC)

Re: Pete's platform...

(Link)
If I refuse it thrice before accepting...
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:25 pm (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)
Yeah...the "lesser of two evils" argument is like saying "you can choose...lose your legs or lose your arms...but it's your choice..."

sigh...
[User Picture]
From:catdeville
Date:March 10th, 2004 05:54 pm (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)

Granted...
but if that *were* your choice, wouldn't you rather choose, than to have someone else choose *for* you (and perhaps decide that they would take both?)

NT,
cat
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 06:46 pm (UTC)

Re: Hell, I hope...

(Link)
Sounds like what we've had under the republicrats...I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

BTW, in partial response to one of your earlier comments: it's not an "either-or" thing--just because we run a presidential candidate, doesn't mean we're not running candidates from "soil and water commission" all the way through state legislatures and up to the top...and the count of elected libertarian office-holders keeps increasing, year-by-year...and yes, I back them all...hell, I even ran for state senate once.

[User Picture]
From:flyingwolf
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:43 am (UTC)

totally agree

(Link)
but I've also decided I'm better off not discussing politics with HappyPete.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 05:20 am (UTC)

Re: totally agree

(Link)
* sigh * well, at least there are other things we can talk about...

maybe I should make a "politics" filter so people who don't want to read what I'm thinking on the subject don't have to...
[User Picture]
From:flyingwolf
Date:March 10th, 2004 05:33 am (UTC)

you don't need to

(Link)
for me anyway.
I could have just ignored your post. Or not commented at all. We have different opinions and I don't think either of us are going to change our opinions. and btw, I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary. I voted for the candidate that best fit my views. It wasn't Kerry. But if a choice between Kerry and Bush I will choose the lessor of two evils. Bush scares me. A Lot.

And yes, there are many other things we can talk about. hugs.
[User Picture]
From:eeedge
Date:March 10th, 2004 06:45 am (UTC)

Re: you don't need to

(Link)
I agree with flyingwolf. People who don't want to read about politics can ignore it or rant if you allow it. I'd rather read considered opinions that I disagree with than have them filtered out.
[User Picture]
From:eeedge
Date:March 10th, 2004 08:17 am (UTC)

Re: you don't need to

(Link)
One caveat, though. The person whose opinion I'm disagreeing with cannot act like I'm an idiot for not agreeing. I had a friend up until recently who seemed to feel that his religious views were the only viable ones and that if I disagreed, then I was an idiot.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:23 pm (UTC)

Re: you don't need to

(Link)
Yeah...I've had a few of my friends really go off on me for my political views.

Heh...in so many ways it's like religion!
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:22 pm (UTC)

Re: you don't need to

(Link)
Heh...you flatter my opinions if you consider them considered...I hardly have time to consider what I'm eating for dinner.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:22 pm (UTC)

Re: you don't need to

(Link)
If Kerry is the lessor of two evils....

WHO'S the LESSEE?! ;)
[User Picture]
From:flyingwolf
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:34 pm (UTC)

Re: you don't need to

(Link)
sure, sure. make fun of my spelling. Despite what that 1:30pm time stamp says it was really EARLY. Way before my daily caffeine.
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 10th, 2004 04:57 pm (UTC)

Re: you don't need to

(Link)
hee hee hee...

you know I only tease because I...CAN!!

* WEG *
[User Picture]
From:cz_unit
Date:March 9th, 2004 08:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Don't vote for Nader. Well, unless you would like another 4 years of Mr. Bush.

Oh, be sure to check the debt clock. We owe a lot of money here, more every day!

CZ
[User Picture]
From:happypete
Date:March 9th, 2004 08:32 pm (UTC)

Oh, I'd never vote for Nader...

(Link)
We differ on the issues far too radically...

Unfortunately, that's true of Bush and Kerry, as well.

* sigh *
[User Picture]
From:steelwngs
Date:March 10th, 2004 08:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
Personally I think that some purchases on the internet should be taxed just like when you buy something from a catalog. If the online company has a physical store in that area you should pay the local sales tax.
But then I'm one of those crazy people that think that most businesses should pay their share of local taxes as well.


As for the whole bush Vs. Kerry thing trying to debate the difference between the two is like trying to figure out the difference between republican and libertarian in a rational way.
Powered by LiveJournal.com