 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) Well, Dave, I don't think it's all that hypothetical anymore. What is particularly interesting to me is the fact that plans are being discussed for postponement, but they're allegedly only a "worst case scenario." I guess we'll see... Dave! (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) As if this isn't a set-up... Some 'leaked' info about 'maybe postphoning' the election in the event of some sort of threat/attack. So soften up the ground before Nov., then "Oh, we raised the threat to red, we have to postphone the election." (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) You have to know that if the US is embroiled in a bloody civil war, Canada will not be unaffected. Chris (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) Of course not. We'd annex you while noone was looking. And noone would pay any attention to your protests because everyone in the US is already too busy complaining about their own problems to pay attention to anyone else's complaints, and (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) Canada is going to have to take a number. I'd rather have (the rest of) Mexico first:-) JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That'd never happen. Conservative corporate interests wouldn't want to see it happen because it'd mean that all of those companies that have moved production plants down there would have to start paying US minimum wage (or worse, Union wage), (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Stepping off my 'trash Dubya' soap box... K, Canada is assimilated by the US-- Can I run for Prez? Is being 'born in the US' retroactive for Canadians if Canada becomes 51-64 states? Dave K (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) That's a good question. The closest precedent I could think of is that if you weren't a natural born citizen, you could still be eligible by being a citizen of the US before the constitution was adopted, but I remember reading that that was (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) The US doesn't recognize dual citizenship. It's a bit of a scam because they do sort of look the other way, but it is possible for the US to retroactively negate your citizenship if they find that you have also claimed Canadian (or any) (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yowza! Is that correct? I know someone who has dual US and Irish citizenship, and she'd be surprised to learn this tidbit. Not that I'm refuting it; I just never heard it before. Dave! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) I'm not willing to do the research, though I'll shoot off an email to my friend, to support my understanding, but as I understand it, the official stance is something like "Well, if you're a citizen of that other nation, you must not be a (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Don't go to any trouble--I didn't mean to give you an assignment. Honestly, I should just suggest to my friend that she check it out herself. After all, it's her dilemma. Thanks all the same. Dave! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) OK, I was totally wrong. The US pretends that dual citizenship doesn't exist. It's neither expressly forbidden nor permitted. Some nations, like Germany expressly forbid it. Dual citizens primarily risk losing their citizenship by (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) It is forbidden, but not very strongly. It's basically under optional enforcement, so the US can revoke your citizenship whenever it's convenient as long as it can be proven that you've done something that warrants such action. Technically the (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Some of my friends introduced me to a family that they met after moving to NYC, where the mother is Canadian, the father is from New Zealand, and the kids were both born in the US, thus affording both kids triple-citizenship...until they turn (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Have you forgotten what it was like down there;-) (...) Yes, but in your case, we'd make an exception;-D JOHN (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I disagree. David K is eminently qualified to be Prez, after all, he's a faithful West Wing watcher. That right there makes him more qualified than our current incumbent (who I suspect may not be able to turn televisions on without (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) He is??? ;-) Hmmm, is "TV watcher" considered a qualification for the presidency by Libertarians? I see that employment isn't;-) (...) You know, that's not as easy as it sounds these days. I don't watch much TV, but when I am at a friend's (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No, but then, the elections are rigged against minor parties anyway, so really, what does it matter what we think? What matters is what the media and the major parties think, right? If you're going to bet on a rigged race, it helps to know who (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I think I say this once every few years, but it's worth repeating every so often--when it comes right down to it, no matter what gets said here in a rant or a tiff or a tirade, people here (in o.t-d, and also elsewhere on LUGNET) are great! (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) No we're not! Chris (getting things back to debate :-) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes we are! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes we are dammit!! Agree with me or I'll hit you over the head with this spoon! Dave K -I say to all you villians--KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!!!!! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Um, we're going to have to CHARGE you for those Kumbaya lessons, you realise. (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) K, so Dave K's Prez.. SecState would be... I'd say Larry (or John, I'm still debating that) SecDef would be Bruce (cause I like his style about dealing with foreign peeps) Who else... Who knows anything about agriculture? Dave K (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Who cares? What does agriculture have to do with government? (other than that one is a fertilizer consumer and the other a fertilizer producer) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oo! Oo! Me! Me! Pick me!!! I can actually save you some money, being appointed Health & Energy Secretary simultaneously. My Programme for the next 4 years will deal with the growing obesity problem amongst youths, and at the same time tackle (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Pedro Silva wrote: (snip) something very similar made the page just before the back cover in this month's Wired.... (the "products from the future" page)... a health club where you get credits in cash back for ergs put into (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Cool! An Ergonomic Stimulus package. Dave! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Holy Cow! I'm in New Jersey...when did we get sold to Canada? And why would they want us? Chris (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) Clearly it was for the...um... . . . Maybe we blackmailed them? ;P (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) Uh, Dave, you're appear to be talking to yourself and you're making even less sense than usual. (Just kidding. Please don't hit me.) Unless I missed the major event, or the election was already cancelled, (there's nothing about it in the news (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Well, when I first mentioned the hypothetical, it was *my* hypothetical, and now that the powers-that-be are addressing it, I'm becoming more concerned. My reasons for this are several: 1. Special elections tend to favor the Right wing, due to (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | (...) I object to that on the grounds that while Bush was understandably interested in keeping the vote in his favor, Gore only presented an alternative that was decidedly biased in his favor (selectively recounting only known pro-Dem counties in a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) To be fair to Gore, though, the contested counties were the ones that showed the irregularities, such as questionable "felon" rosters, questionable butterfly ballots, questionable voting machines, and generally questionable tactics of denying (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I thought the issue was that they were unlikely to vote for Buchanan. (...) The issue was that the Democrats were only bringing known pro-Dem areas into question in the first place. Voting errors occur all the time, and Gore's campaign wasn't (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Interestingly, it appears that the GOP has decided that e-voting is so unreliable that it's encouraging Florida Republicans to use their absentee ballots instead. (URL) this is all becoming less and less hypothetical as we go along. Hmm... (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | | (...) I've been against e-voting from very first moment I heard about it, because the closer it gets to being done over the internet, the closer it gets to the point where either a hacker can directly tweak the results, or a timed virus can prevent (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | "Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I1zIBB.6M0@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) to (...) not one (...) party (...) door). The best ballots I have seen so far were in Wake County North Carolina. A very easy ballot where (...) (20 years ago, 5-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | "In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place." —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Postal votes have been used in the UK for yonks. However, they have been used recently as a tool to improve voter turnout. This has led to three problems: Party workers have been "assisting" voters with the paperwork. Within some ethnic (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: "In order to do a proper count one has to know how many people voted in the first place." —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) We've got Absentee Ballots, but they're primarily aimed at those who either can't be in their district on voting day (such as deployed troops), or can't reasonably be expected to travel to their voting place (such as the elderly or (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I think this is an example of what people all over the net are reacting to: (URL) particularly like the phrase "secure the election" in a quote from Homeland Security. Chris (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) And I liked the quote from Ciro Rodriguez: "If they do this, boy, my God, they're extremely desperate". I'm wondering if strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing it up, or flying a plane into a building only requires you to be a little bit (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) Evidentally not, since passengers on the ill-fated 9/11 flights were telling friends/family that the pilots had to lock their fellow-terrorists out of the cockpit to prevent them from retaking control of the planes to save their lives. You've (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I am with Lincoln on this matter (from the article): == Abraham Lincoln was urged by some aides to suspend the election of 1864 - during the US Civil War - but despite the expectation that he would lose, he refused. "The election is a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Lincoln was in a very different situation than what we have now. There was a war being waged on US soil, but there probably wasn't much concern about terrorist attacks specifically aimed at disrupting the elections. The people being (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
