S 1975 - Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005

[jeff]

Inq, you merely demonstrate that you don't understand conservativism either.

It is as fundamentally idealist and optimistic as other political belief systems, as anyone with the least understanding of the conservative movement, from Buckley to the current date, would know - despite holding a set of values and beliefs I frequently disagree with. The old "the government is the problem" rhetoric is no longer in use, you may have noticed - nice rhetoric to use when your party doesn't run it.

Perhaps you should read some of the literature by and about the conservative movement so you could understand the philosophy you claim to adhere to, and reconcile your misconception with a movement that (among other things) fought Communism for idealistic reasons.

Are you now saying that Reagan didn't believe his own "shining city on a hill" idealistic, optimistic rhetoric, and that he became corrupted by office? After expending thousands of keystrokes defending Bush's honesty, are you now saying he cynically and corruptly misled us into war and enriches his friends? Well, never let it be said you were consistent.

Your protestations of "I cannot see'" are demonstrations of blindness, not of logic. As achilleus points out, you make sweeping statements without any proof, while demanding voluminous documentation for any position counter to your own.

To the subject at hand, you have an un-answered direct question from esskreemr, which I'll remind you of: Simple yes or no question: Do you consider sending false information about the time and place of elections speech that is protected by the right to free speech?
. So what is it, Inq, yes or no?

[Gav]

It's amazing, you say this blanket, general unproven statement, yet argue endlessly that the Bush administration was not deceitful about the invasion of Iraq.

And I think that lack of responses to the thread that I posted: "So the Intelligence was wrong ..."* speaks volumes.


*I should have put a quesion mark rather than an ellipsis.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I think it's too vague, too broad and without sufficient safeguards. And unnecessary into the bargain. And I suspect that the real motive behind its introduction are not really to protect people's voting rights at all but to grandstand and make political statements about the wicked opposition oppressing poor Democrats and robbing them of their rightful electoral victories...

Well, I suggested a narrowing of the law - limiting it to people acting under power of law.

Naaw- the other party has never grandstanded, nor has it ever made political statements about its opposition. Never.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Epee_Pox]

And I think that lack of responses to the thread that I posted: "So the Intelligence was wrong ..."* speaks volumes.

What's to say? There was erroneous data, that data was relied on in making the decision, it turned out for the best anyway, and now it's acknowledged that the data currently available indicates that the original data was erroneous. What's that got to do with Inq arguing that there was no deceit involved? Error does not equal deceit.

[Gav]

What's to say? There was erroneous data, that data was relied on in making the decision, it turned out for the best anyway, and now it's acknowledged that the data currently available indicates that the original data was erroneous. What's that got to do with Inq arguing that there was no deceit involved? Error does not equal deceit.

For gods sake ...

And people wonder why I periodically think about ditching this board.

[Slim]

For gods sake ...

And people wonder why I periodically think about ditching this board.

Indeed. How dare someone express a contrary opinion on a discussion board. Especially after all the back and forth on this issue. And they STILL dont agree. What's an Oracle to do?

Try this next time....state your predictable opinion with the piece you post FIRST. Then, its much easier for the usual suspects to chime in with their "Right on Gav!" or, "Great post Gav", or "You tell 'em Gav". That may scare us intellectual inferiors away and spare you the pain.

[Inquartata]

It's amazing, you say this blanket, general unproven statement, yet argue endlessly that the Bush administration was not deceitful about the invasion of Iraq.

It's only "amazing" if you insist on ignoring the umpteen times I've actually iterated my position and instead remark on what you THINK I said.

My position is, and always has been, ONLY that "deceit" has not been proven. Not that it did not, will not, cannot, may not, shall not exist.

Once again: that it hasn't been demonstrated. This is not the same as averring that it never happened. It may have done.

Is this clear enough? Or would you prefer to filter it through your own preconceptions again?

[Slim]

And I think that lack of responses to the thread that I posted: "So the Intelligence was wrong ..."* speaks volumes.


*I should have put a quesion mark rather than an ellipsis.

Yeah, it absolutely screams "Please change the record. This one is broken"

What's new to discuss?

[Inquartata]

Inq, you merely demonstrate that you don't understand conservativism either.

Ahahahaha!

Please, o all-knowing, all-wise one! Explain conservatism to me...and while you're at it, perhaps you could explain to your grandmother how she should go about sucking eggs.

Jeff, is there ANYTHING you don't feel that you know more about than everyone else?

It is as fundamentally idealist and optimistic as other political belief systems, as anyone with the least understanding of the conservative movement, from Buckley to the current date, would know - despite holding a set of values and beliefs I frequently disagree with. The old "the government is the problem" rhetoric is no longer in use, you may have noticed - nice rhetoric to use when your party doesn't run it.

Balderdash. The fact that you aren't hearing it, or even that it is not currently in vogue amongst the ruling Party elite, scarcely establishes its nonexistence or its obsolescence.

Moreover, by suggesting that there is only one "conservatism" and it is characterized by thus and such you are not establishing your own supposed superior understanding of the philosophy very effectively.

[quotePerhaps you should read some of the literature by and about the conservative movement so you could understand the philosophy you claim to adhere to, and reconcile your misconception with a movement that (among other things) fought Communism for idealistic reasons.[/quote]

Oh, brother.

Jeff, one day they will probably carve "You ought to go read up on everything" on your tombstone. Probably with a little bust of you looking down your nose atop the marker.

Are you now saying that Reagan didn't believe his own "shining city on a hill" idealistic, optimistic rhetoric, and that he became corrupted by office?

Both. It is possible to have ideals while simultaneously falling short of them. It is possible to pursue noble ends by ignoble means, and ignoble ends by noble means. The tendency to self-deception is hardly unknown to politicians. And moral beliefs are not uncommonly coupled with chicanery and dishonesty.

After expending thousands of keystrokes defending Bush's honesty, are you now saying he cynically and corruptly misled us into war and enriches his friends? Well, never let it be said you were consistent.

You and Achilleus, you never actually read what I write, do you? You prefer to talk about what you want me to have said, what you wish I'd said, what your great perspicacity reveals that I really meant to say...

Ah, well. I suppose it's the only way you can maintain your belief in the superiority of your own way of thinking about the world.

Your protestations of "I cannot see'" are demonstrations of blindness, not of logic. As achilleus points out, you make sweeping statements without any proof, while demanding voluminous documentation for any position counter to your own.

Blah, blah, blah. Sing us yet another verse of "Only my way of arguing is legitimate, you must argue only as I say or you are not worth my time".

Sorry. I'm not going to let you set the terms of the debate to favor yourself, nor am I going to learn Jeff's Rules of Rhetoric and restrict myself to them. You argue as you see fit, and I will do the same. And no amount of scolding is going to make me tug my forelock to you on this issue.

To the subject at hand, you have an un-answered direct question from esskreemr, which I'll remind you of: Simple yes or no question: Do you consider sending false information about the time and place of elections speech that is protected by the right to free speech?
. So what is it, Inq, yes or no?

Did you miss the part where I said there was no "untruth" exemption to the free speech protection of the First Amendment? Apparently. Wait, let me go check the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Nope, no qualification about only true speech being protected in there...

[Inquartata]

And I think that lack of responses to the thread that I posted: "So the Intelligence was wrong ..."* speaks volumes.

Yes. And the volumes have been writ here:


http://www.fencing.net/forums/politics/t20027.html


You want me to repeat myself yet again on the subject, just because you started another thread?

[Inquartata]

Naaw- the other party has never grandstanded, nor has it ever made political statements about its opposition. Never.

I never said it hadn't, didn't or wouldn't. Politics is politics, whether you're playing the white pieces or the black. ( Tu quoque fallacy, in case you're interested. )

[Amadeus]

Yes. As written, the bill is appallingly broad and could cover statements such as the one I jokingly made above. Don't like that your wife plans to "cancel out" your vote, so you tell her the election is tomorrow instead of today? Go to jail, $100,000 fine.

And notice that the law turns on words such as "knowingly" and "intent". With guys like you and Jeff arguing that any false statements are de facto evidence of intentional deceit ( see the "Fundamentalism" thread ), that could mean that even mistaken statements could be criminalized.

You also make the argument that laws like the Patriot Act confer powers which will and must eventually be abused, given the nature of authority. If so, this law too is guaranteed o be abused.

There is no "untruth" exemption to the First Amendment.

there are many, many things you can say that violate the first amendment. if you didn't want your wife to go to work, and you told her that there was a bomb in her workplace, you would certainly be arrested. (and depending on how you made the threat and whether or not you're a middle easterner, you could be held indefinately without counsel or trial under the patriot act.)

blackmail is only talk, as well.

there are exceptions to the first amendment. Some of those exceptions cover lies, and some of them cover truths, but that's irrelevant.

for example. During the 2004 election, there was a case, in illinois if i remember correctly, wherein state law said that any citizen may challenge any other citizen's right to vote. Because one of the candidates, who will remain anonymous, has low popularity amongst black people, his supporters went to polling areas, planning to challenge the right to vote of anyone who is black, hoping that the trials would last until the voting stopped. Some quickly passed legislation prevented this from ever coming to pass, but problems like these should be prevented whenever possible. Our right to vote is the most important right in this country, and it is imperative that we protect it.

[achilleus]

It's only "amazing" if you insist on ignoring the umpteen times I've actually iterated my position and instead remark on what you THINK I said.

My position is, and always has been, ONLY that "deceit" has not been proven. Not that it did not, will not, cannot, may not, shall not exist.

Once again: that it hasn't been demonstrated. This is not the same as averring that it never happened. It may have done.

Is this clear enough? Or would you prefer to filter it through your own preconceptions again?

I'm well aware of the fine line that you've pointed out several times.

Do you really fail to see the irony of demanding a smoking gun and making a unprovable, general sweeping statement about a similar subject?

It really makes me laugh.

[Gav]

Y'know ... Slim ... I had already deleted my comment by the time you wrote because, on reflection I realised that I was: tired, being unfair, and a little grumpy. I had it deleted because I don't indulge myself with the kind of bullying personal attacks that you seem to revel in.

Now, if I seem condescending; if I seem patronising; if I seem to think of you as inferior it's only because your foolishness means that I have to treat you as the teenager you obviously wish you [still] were.

[jeff]

Ahahahaha!

Please, o all-knowing, all-wise one! Explain conservatism to me...and while you're at it, perhaps you could explain to your grandmother how she should go about sucking eggs.

Jeff, is there ANYTHING you don't feel that you know more about than everyone else?

No, dear boy. It's not "everyone else" - just you. Do try harder to come up with something you're knowledgeable about. Not that lack of knowledge ever stops you - remember your clueless, hilarious SDI and nuclear test arguments? A classic.

Balderdash. The fact that you aren't hearing it, or even that it is not currently in vogue amongst the ruling Party elite, scarcely establishes its nonexistence or its obsolescence.

Moreover, by suggesting that there is only one "conservatism" and it is characterized by thus and such you are not establishing your own supposed superior understanding of the philosophy very effectively.

Oh, brother.

Jeff, one day they will probably carve "You ought to go read up on everything" on your tombstone. Probably with a little bust of you looking down your nose atop the marker.

Oh dear, I touched a nerve, hence your carpet chewing.

I'm sure you would like to change the subject to whether you or I are optimistic or pessimistic, and the true nature of conservatism (hell, you've vented your opinions on liberalism enough times - turnabout is fair play, Inq) instead of discussing laws passed to protect voters from being coerced, intimidated, or fooled into not voting. You've expressed your outrage against efforts to protect those voters, and clearly cast your vote as being on the side of those with deceptive practices to prevent voting. I would change the subject too if I were you.

That's a nice trick, by the way. I also like that bit of characterising me as optimistic, and asking "who can reason with an optimist?". Obviously, not you. And that sort of gets you off the hook for failing to provide any reasonable argument, eh? Cute ploy.

As far as this optimistic vs. pessimistic stuff and political affiliation - it's foolish and trivializing to try to characterise political movements to people's personalities, as if my sunny and pleasant disposition tilts me one way and yours another. I've never noticed any rule that said 'grumpy people in one political movement, and cheerful optimists in another'.

In fact, contrary to how you portray it, the rubric I've heard (from conservative sources) is that conservatism is optimistic and liberalism pessimistic, because liberals think people need laws and social structures to protect them from themselves, while conservatives think, optimistically, that we all have such good characteristics that we need only be freed from the bonds of government. I have no doubt that somebody can quote comments expressing the opposite; it's a fun parlor game. Such characterizations are silly and reductionist, but if that's the level of your political thought, enjoy yourself.

But this is just a distraction from the subject we're discussing. Here, your outrage is directed against people who would make laws to protect voters from deceptive practice, rather than against the people who have such practices. I think that's appalling.

Both. It is possible to have ideals while simultaneously falling short of them. It is possible to pursue noble ends by ignoble means, and ignoble ends by noble means. The tendency to self-deception is hardly unknown to politicians. And moral beliefs are not uncommonly coupled with chicanery and dishonesty.

You're saying that Reagan didn't believe his own rhetoric and became corrupted by office. Well, I never would have believed you would say that, so that's a surprise. Even though I had no use for the man, I thought he was sincere. I suspect you represent a tiny minority of opinion here. In the interest of getting you to actually document one of your claims rather than make sweeping unsupported assertions, could you tell me which part of the "shining hill on the city" was chicanery and dishonesty?

You and Achilleus, you never actually read what I write, do you? You prefer to talk about what you want me to have said, what you wish I'd said, what your great perspicacity reveals that I really meant to say...

Sorry Inq, we can only read the contents you enter onto the board - and they're absolutely clear, not the inner thoughts you might have left unexpressed. As Achilleus said early this morning, you demand a smoking gun from others (always!), yet you make an "unprovable, general sweeping statement about a similar subject". If you want to brazen your way out - claiming you didn't say what you clearly did - go on trying.

Ah, well. I suppose it's the only way you can maintain your belief in the superiority of your own way of thinking about the world.

Wrong again: I have many ways to maintain my belief in the superiority of my thought compared to yours. You reinforce that every time you flounder around like this. This is not the first time you've thrown an on-screen tantrum when caught saying something foolish. Bellowing insults and changing the topic won't work. But, do keep trying.

Blah, blah, blah. Sing us yet another verse of "Only my way of arguing is legitimate, you must argue only as I say or you are not worth my time".

Sorry. I'm not going to let you set the terms of the debate to favor yourself, nor am I going to learn Jeff's Rules of Rhetoric and restrict myself to them. You argue as you see fit, and I will do the same. And no amount of scolding is going to make me tug my forelock to you on this issue.

Of course not - you're shameless. You're too smart to think that "I don't see" constitutes an argument, and you're just avoiding being called on the content of your arguments.

Look - you've been caught doing your favorite rhetorical tricks again. If you want to wriggle out of having to argue to the very standards you demand from everyone else - not Jeff's rules or Achilleus's rules - then go right ahead, but you're not fooling anybody.

Did you miss the part where I said there was no "untruth" exemption to the free speech protection of the First Amendment? Apparently. Wait, let me go check the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Nope, no qualification about only true speech being protected in there...

Amadeus just answered this eloquently in his morning's post to you. Not all speech is protected, as he explains.

So, the real story, Inq, is that when it comes down to protecting a basic freedom - the freedome to vote - you come down squarely on the side of those who want to coerce, intimidate, or fool people into not exercising it. That says all anybody needs to say about your concern for guarantees of freedom.

[Slim]

No, dear boy. It's not "everyone else" - just you. Do try harder to come up with something you're knowledgeable about. Not that lack of knowledge ever stops you - remember your clueless, hilarious SDI and nuclear test arguments? A classic.

You're right, it's not everyone else. Just anyone that disagrees with you.

[Epee_Pox]

As far as this optimistic vs. pessimistic stuff and political affiliation - it's foolish and trivializing to try to characterise political movements to people's personalities, as if my sunny and pleasant disposition tilts me one way and yours another. I've never noticed any rule that said 'grumpy people in one political movement, and cheerful optimists in another'.

In fact, contrary to how you portray it, the rubric I've heard (from conservative sources) is that conservatism is optimistic and liberalism pessimistic, because liberals think people need laws and social structures to protect them from themselves, while conservatives think, optimistically, that we all have such good characteristics that we need only be freed from the bonds of government. I have no doubt that somebody can quote comments expressing the opposite; it's a fun parlor game. Such characterizations are silly and reductionist, but if that's the level of your political thought, enjoy yourself.

I think this is an inaccurate description of conservatives and liberals in modern America.

Conservatives believe that government is often the proper means of taking care of something. Their definition of "limited government" is that things that can be taken care of locally should be left to local government to do so. Things that local gov't can't take care of, should be left to the next level up. And so on, so that the Federal government takes care of those things that can only be done on the national level. There is no optimism or pessimism here.

With respect to optimism/pessimism, both liberals and conservatives recognize that people are often good, often nasty, and often indifferent. But conservatives believe that government is not a replacement for social mores and strong community values. When government tries to enforce values and manners, conservatives get riled. Liberals tend to try to use laws, regulations and rulings to enforce their (sometimes unrealistic, sometimes good) ideals of civic politeness.

Liberals believe that government is in charge, and ought to use its power to make everyone's life as better as it can. The inherent assumption to this belief is that it is government's job to do that, which is something conservatives do not believe. Conservatives believe that the people are in charge, and with a few rare exceptions it is the people's job to make their lives as better as they can, and government's job to not get in the way of that. There is an element of optimism in the liberal's belief that the government CAN make everything better, whereas the conservative is pessimistic about the government's ABILITY to make eveything better in many cases.

As has been said before, it boils down to the perception of the role of government and the citizen. The conservative believes that the government manages things for the citizen, and only those things the citizen can't do for himself. The liberal believes that the government rules the citizen, knows better than the citizen what is good for her, and is duty-bound to take care of the citizen.

[jeff]

You're right, it's not everyone else. Just anyone that disagrees with you.

Aw, so nice of you to stick up for Inq. He's a big fella, I'm sure he can handle himself just fine. If you trouble to look around, you'll see me disagree with people on the board yet be respectful of their opinions, knowledge and arguments. I've even conceded error and bowed to superior knowledge. What a thought!

Slim, if this is a sore spot for you, then too bad - I entirely agree with Gav's post today about you. You're hardly a one to complain about knowledgeable posts being derided.

It's very simple: put up good arguments backed by reasoning and evidence, avoid unprovoked name calling, and people won't condescend to you or mock you. If you can't do that, then don't expect to put up silly posts without being jumped on.

[jeff]

I think this is an inaccurate description of conservatives and liberals in modern America... (snip)

I agree with you, and think you made a pretty darn good thumbnail summary of both positions. It was never my posture that either of them was inherently optimistic or pessimistic.

[esskreemr]

No wonder you're a liberal! You retain vestiges of idealism, such as the naive belief that there are some good, honest politicians out there somewhere.

I do not buy that possibility at all. IMO politicians are either corrupt and venal when they enter politics or are corrupted soon after election. The art of compromise and of serving a narrow constituency, the proximity to money and power and the venality of those surrounding them on every side, the drive to get re-elected---I cannot see how any human being could possibly resist those pressures and retain his integrity. Any more than anyone could dive into a septic tank and remain clean and fragrant.

Gaaahhh! I actually agree with Inq here. I think politicians of any ilk (dems, repubs, indies, libs, fundies, cons, etc.) may start of with good intentions but are soon twisted and compromised by the American political system. I'm for dropping the whole lot and starting with a fresh crew. Whatever happened to term limitations as posed by the Repubs 'Contract with America?' It's a shame that they haven't fulfilled very much of the contract...