Its a simple question, is it in our best interest, may it be voting, internet, etc, to make information too uniform? I didn't think about it until the last election, when there was much discussion about overhauling and uniforming the entire voting system. I was like, Hell Yeah! Now I don't think so. Is uniform information easier to tamper with? Yes. Think about it. We could complain about dated punch boxes in Broward county, or computers in Cleveland, but at least they've got different problems, and at least we can identify them geographically. I thought about what would happen if voting was all compiled via the same on-line system. Some dorky or pissed off person could really hack in and wreck havoc all over. Not just one ballotting site.

Another fear I actually have is about the new internet the military is building, for use in warfare, now. How easily could something like that be hacked into? I don't know...I'm actually asking all you computer people if you have insight into if this uniform, centralized, on-line information is a bad idea because it can more easily be obtained, as a whole, by outside people.



-Dolce

*puts tinfoil hat on*

No, of course not. That's what teh concept of federalism is all about: each state does things on its own, in a manner that best suits that particular state.

Dima! You sure do have your moments!



-Dolce

Well, I do try hard.

Good. If you got the money and wanna do something crazy like that then go for it. It's like Bill Gates buying a giraffe for sexual purposes. He's got the money so why not.

Speaking of "uniform" (and I know this is off-topic slightly), I am inclined to bieleve that the reason Kerry lost the election, is because of the "uniform" right-wing media coverage in middle America (ie. conservative brainwashing leading to 4 million more votes for Bush) that the election coverage got on-air and on-radio, in lieu of unbiased reporting. (Go see Outfoxed to see what I am talking about.)

It truly speaks volumes that in places like D.C., (where people actually saw the movie, or have reason to question the administration) Kerry got 90 percent of the vote, while in places like Utah (where I live), Bush got only 70 percent.

-zbp

Yup, nothing to do witht he fact that the majority of people in DC is black, and in Utah they're white.

So I guess thats why states have VOTED to legalize Marijuana and Gay Marriages (or in most recent cases criminalize), untouched by the Federal government.

jah, man.

Nope nothing.

(Most Utahns in my understanding, voted for Bush because they thought he represented moral values (such as criminalizing Gay Marriage), while also being optimistic that Iraq could still be salvaged by a Bush administration.)

Anyways, your point doesn't hold for the simple reason that Kerry is white, and if Blacks are so radically different than White voters as you say, then why didn't they just vote for the leader of the Nation of Islam?

Because the majority of black voters vote Democratic? Really, demographics is not rocket science.

The problem being:

Liberals (including the Libertarian Right, which actually makes liberals moderate) are typically educated, and are willing to learn from the past.

Stations: PBS, Comedy Central's The Daily Show, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher (a libertarian)

Conservatives, while also educated, are typically conformists (whether because they don't care about anyone other themselves, and/or want government to be less of an influence in their lives in general) to what they are hearing from the mainstream media and politicians.

Stations: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC (note: these are corporate entities, not non-profit or governmental bodies), and of course FoxNews, who is sending each of these networks further and further to the right.

In other words: liberal are TEH smart, conservatives are TEH dumb.

That's why your guy lost the election, buddy, because of attitude like that.


By the way, Maher calling himself a libertarian is a joke.

So let me get this straight, black voters bieleve in democracy (albiet naively and at higher percentages than whites), while white voters entrust our system to corporate/political whims?

Assuming a premise and then proving it right? I'm sure there's a logical fallacy there somewhere. Maybe you, an educated Kerry voter, can point it out to me? ;-)

I don't know what he calls himself, but based on the first season list of New Rules on his show, there were some things that sounded more "libertarian", than "liberal".

But no, I said quite clearly (and contrary to popular opinion of both "sides"), Conservatives (and in this case fiscal conservatives as well) are in fact usually highly educated, just not socially minded and therefore really have no business dictating how to help people succeed, not as "educated" as they are.

Let's see: Maher supports minimum wage, gun control laws, Kyoto protocol, public education, etc.

Yes, he's a libertarian

And once again, you're proving your argument by assumign the conclusion you're trying to get. That's called begging the question, in case you didn't know.

I registered as a Democrat in a state full of Republicans, so my vote (literally, as my voter registration was not turned over by the DMV) did not count.

We went from begging the question[/] to a [i]non sequitur. Man, you're batting 100%!

I speak the truth as it applies to me. Begging the question, which I previously assumed to be true, you do have more education then I do - correct?

As a liberal (who has to search out unbiased media reporting), and a socially minded person, I apologize for the confusion.

I don't know if I have more education that you do, and I don't assume that I do.

And if you want unbiased reporting, then you shouldn't be watching news channels.

dolce, I just can't resist any of this.

The "conformist, non-caring" conservatives, Bill Maher as a libertarian, and DC residents voting for Kerry because of Outfoxed all act as irritants to me.

So to change the subject a little (If you must know, I got my absentee ballot from California, so thats how I know my registration didn't go through.) Who is that person supposed to be in your signature??

Because if its an old quote, the tide has since turned and Missouri now breeds and votes Republican??

(I was very careful to use enough question marks this time, so as to not confuse you any further.)

It is indeed an old quote (more than a 100 years old, actually). As you know, Missouri is the "show me" state, and the legend goes, that's the motto originated with that quote.

I use it not because I am a Missourian or a Democrat. I use it because I am that type of person; if you want me to believe something you say, you've got to "show me" (meaning prove it to me).

I know its a joke. The whole left vs right is a joke, perpitrated by the media in a effort for high ratings. Conservatives who like to say that it's the "Liberals attitude" is what caused the election results to skew the way it did, dont seem to get that that shows like the Daily Show which criticized them during the election, is actually satire.

I know, but what I was getting at, was that those Liberals that aren't as educated (of which I included myself) are forced to seek other media outlets, while Conservatives that aren't educated themselves, will bieleve what they are told on television.

I know Dems watch it, and thats why PBS has Tucker Carlson now. The problem is that Americans as a whole are willing to trust what they see on television as truth (maybe not the politicians themselves, but because News Anchors are generally accepted as being unbiased, they think they are hearing the whole story), without taking the time to see a movie like Outfoxed (or research coverage on the internet in other countries) to be reminded of what it takes to form an unbiased opinion.