My Mid-October IT Update - OnDemand Launch, New Poll...
Here's my new IT Update... Enjoy!
Take a minute to vote in our new poll (in the right-hand column on this page): Who will you vote for Nov 4th? NOTE: You have to be logged in to vote!
P.S. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel - http://www.youtube.com/breakthematrix
UPDATE 10/18
YouTube Honors:
#14 - Most Responded (Today) - Science & Technology
#9 - Top Favorited (Today) - Science & Technology
#22 - Top Rated (Today) - Science & Technology
#54 - Most Responded (This Week) - Science & Technology
#75 - Most Viewed (Today) - Science & Technology
#91 - Top Favorited (This Week) - Science & Technology
THANKS for rating and favoriting my video in YouTube!! You guys rock :)
******
And... if you've been following ThirdPartyTicket.com or FreeAndEqual.com, here's the latest...
http://www.breakthematrix.com/BreakTheMatrix/ThirdPartyTicket-com-debate...
- shelly's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 7962 reads
****
How will the on demand work? Will there be an HTML page with links to whatever shows are available? I'm curious since I'm blind and use a screen reader. If you don't know what I'm talking about, write me privately.
Yes - there will be HTML links to the shows and broadcasts. It should be available shortly, so you can poke around and let me know if you have any trouble.
Thanks :)
Shelly
It's telling that Libertarians are holding their noses while voting for Barr. They really screwed putting him on the ballot -- the guy that brought us the Clinton impeachment debacle. For a guy to disavow most of his career at his late age and become a born-again Libertarian is pretty sad. Thanks, I'll stick with Nader.
Excderpt from Wikipedia:
Original plan
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
“ Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. ”
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:
“ The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. ”
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided for the original fashion by which the President and Vice President were to be chosen by the electors. The primary difference was that each elector voted for two Persons for President, rather than one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. After the choosing of the President, whoever had the most electoral votes, among the remaining candidates, would become the Vice President.
The design of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:
Each state would employ the district system of allocating electors.
Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
Candidates for either office would not pair together on the same ticket.
The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress.[13]
On these facts, scholars have described the intended role of the Electoral College as simply a body who would nominate candidates from which the Congress would then select a President and Vice President.[14]
Please tell me it ain't so Shelly?!?!
We're already screwed enough with the 2 Republocrats.
Why would you not rally behind the man Ron Paul endorsed - Chuck Baldwin?
After all, that butt brain Bob Barr didn't even show up for the 3rd party conference Ron Paul so strongly endorsed!
Hey, I did score some points for the good guys. I was in DC (visiting our money) last week and ran into two middle aged women that were hardcore Obama supporters. When they tried to proselytize me, I started asking them questions. When I got to "what is your definition of freedom?" I got the usual blank stare. Start asking people this question - almost nobody can answer it! A half hour later, I had one of them convinced that people don't really have a right to healthcare. She was astounded, but kept telling her friend "no, he's right" when the friend tried to disagree.
I don't think this will put Baldwin over the top, but it's a start! One less Obama sign. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Who is Chuck Baldwin and why is Ron Paul listed on Shelly's poll for President? Paul is only on the ballot in Montana. And most importantly, even if people have no right to health care, why would we not want everyone to have quality health care? Ed in Alabama
THat's why I'm dead set against the government providing it.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Quality health care begins by making sure the food and drink you put into your mouth is conducive to good health. Most will fail, preferring instead to seek out medical professionals in treatment for preexisting problems. Thus the health care system is designed, not to bring or maintain good health, but to treat existing medical problems. Their is a difference between treating a problem and solving a problem. This current system will never change until we take responsibility for our own health.
I'm getting older, you know, and some of those nagging "health" issues do tend to pop up in my otherwise enjoyable life from time to time. If I have to pay for my own healthcare, a huge extra burden is placed on me. Without free healthcare, I need to make a series of difficult decisions based on cost/benefit every time I want to go to the doctor. What an annoyance-- I have to think about the cost of the visit; and make a judgment whether it's worth it to pay; and write a check with real money (mine) if I actually spend some time with the physician. Tom-- you party pooper-- don't you realize that all these emotional and financial stresses are avoided if DC sponsored healthcare is provided for free? The government doesn't have to pay anyway-- they use funny money fiat dollars that can be charged against future generations. You have no compassion for the needs of others (i.e., people like me). R
No one would have known that you're over 39 :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
It's immoral to forcefully redistribute wealth to pay for a healthcare system that people may not want. Make no mistake, threatening to put peopple in jail if they don't file forms for the IRS is force. Do you really think the government can give you quality healthcare? Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have to wait six months to get treated in Canada's socialized healthcare system.
I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin, but sadly, I don't expect a third party candidate to win. There are actually people going door to door supporting Obama. It's so sad because those people's harts are in the right place, but they get their news from the mainstream media.
I'll be voting LP again.
Chuck Baldwin all the way. A man who knows what he is talking about. Check out you tube
This is it! This is the most beautiful and attractive woman I will ever see in my entire life. It's all downhill from here. Kind of surreal, making that realization.
I'm very begrudgingly voting for Barr on election day. I'll have to slit my arms slowly over the course of several weeks in order to make amends.
Keep up the good work.
I don't recall Ron Paul telling anyone else that they ought to vote for Baldwin. As I recall it, he only stated that he intended to vote for Baldwin. Had Barr showed up to the now infamous event, Barr would have still been in Paul's good graces and there would have likely been no "endorsement" of anyone.
I too hate to see the liberty vote split all over the place, but I'm going Libertarian for ballot access and a few other reasons.
It's high time for those two to have a one-on-one conversation -- without their staffs inserting flies into the ointment. Kiss and make up already! Pride cometh before a fall -- and all that....
Huh?? Why not vote for Constitutional Principle over Party by electing the only Presidential candidate that Ron Paul is endorsing?
We can't afford a divided Freedom Vote, so I hope all of us on the Ron Paul team will do as he says and vote for Chuck Baldwin (www.baldwin08.com).
I am voting for Chuck Baldwin. If Ron Paul were on the ballot I would vote for him. Since he is not and he has endorsed chuck I will vote for him
Florida must get rid of Ander Crenshaw and Corrine Brown They are traiders to the Constitution and America. Vote them OUT!
I love me some Shelly. :)
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
i am conscientiously not voting. i will not vote in any presidential election until the electoral college is abolished and my vote actually means something. also, let's be honest: under the electoral college system third parties are virtually meaningless. in 1992 ross perot got 19% of the popular vote, but he got exactly as many votes that matter - electoral votes - as i did, and i spent $65 million less than he did.
in the meantime, i will root for a 269-269 electoral college tie so that others will see the idiocy of this system.
that said, who doesn't love them some shelly??
The electoral college was created as a compromise between those who wanted the President to be elected by popular vote and those who thought it would be best for the Senate to decide as a "represented vote." So, it's a compromise and is based upon the votes of your state. In that sense, it is still a popular vote. But, it's represented at the same time. It's also nice in that it does not give unnecessary strength to urban centers only, who carry the majority of the population, but gives a voice to small towns, rural areas, and smaller cities. Additionally, it's almost like a built-in fraud buffer, in that it makes it more difficult for frauds to achieve an across-the-board popular vote victory. I'm not totally ready to see the electoral college go, since there are some benefits.
I understand why the EC was created, and I'm not saying it wasn't a good idea at the time. But it's an anachronism and now serves only to keep power concentrated in the hands of the two major parties. And it's absurd that someone can win a majority of the votes in the country and lose the election, as Al Gore did in 2000. (Not that I'm at all a fan of Gore, but he should've been President.)
I don't agree that it's a "built-in fraud buffer," since what it does is allow for 50 opportunities for fraud. Also, why is the strength of urban centers "unnecessary," if that's where the majority of the people in the country choose to live? I live in NYC, and there is absolutely no reason for me to vote, since Obama is gonna win NY handily. As it is now, neither candidate has even bothered to campaign in NY, CA, or TX, despite the millions upon millions of people who live in those states.
So in the end, what the EC system does is take away my incentive to vote, completely eliminate the possibility of a third party candidate having a chance to win, and take away power from the people in favor of two political parties.
And worst of all, now that Jamie McMurray just headed to the garage, my NASCAR fantasy week has taken a decidedly bad turn. I blame this on the EC as well, though I may need a few minutes to figure out why.
I always enjoy Andy's comments. He's sometimes right; sometimes wrong; but always entertaining. On the electoral college issue, it's not even close-- wrong again, Andy.
Why? Because the electoral college is one of the key remaining constitutional vestiges of the true core to freedom-- our federalist system. The electoral college, properly understood, represents and elevates the power of individual states. The EC is a bulwark standing against the misguided concept of mass national "democracy"-- a concept which Andy (and all proponents of centralized DC government) favor. Of course the EC appears anachronistic at this present moment. Central government proponents have held power for a long time, and our states have been (temporarily) neutered by such people. DC power is what the centralizers want, and our weak sisters in state government have allowed it to happen for far too long. But as the DC/Wall Street monolith collapses into a pile of financial rubble, there's good news soon to follow. States; local communities; neighborhoods; families-- these institutions so denigrated by the centralizers are on their way to a major rebirth as the monolith falls. R
First of all, I take issue with your subject header: I can't be "wrong again," since I've never been wrong before. You're not being logical, Rick - clearly your emotions are out of control. Shame on you.
Also, I wasn't aware that I was a proponent of centralized DC government, so I guess I learned something about myself today!
Look, I understand the federalist argument for the electoral college system - I simply maintain that it doesn't work, for purposes of voting for President. I'm all for keeping power away from the feds, but the EC doesn't do that at all. What it does is effectively disenfranchise a lot of people and keep power in the hands of two political parties - at the expense of individuals. Whatever the founders' intention, in this day and age the EC gives more power to the system and takes power out of the hands of the people. (Or, more accurately, the persons.) So ironically, in defending the EC, you are in effect defending the status quo of a two-party political system that keeps power in the hands of the powerful. You may not love the matrix, but the matrix loves you!
Also, let's not pretend that state governments, or city/town councils, etc., are any better, or less corrupt, than the federal government. The litany of abuses committed against individual freedom by localities is a long one - possibly (if not probably) longer than the list of abuses committed by the federal government. (The fact that I can't own a gun in NYC has nothing to do with the guv'ment down in DC.)
As Philp K. Dick said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." And the reality is that the EC is bad, not just for democracy, but for the individual.
Finally, if the Red Sox win tonight, I may have to move to Belgium.
Hey Andy,
New to this thread, but I like some of your points. Now there's this guy who, upon close scrutiny of the proceedings from the Constitutional Convention (CC if you please) surmised it, the CC, to be a mere non-violent coup d'Etat of sorts. I'm guessing the EC designed during the CC was certainly built to stifle the mob and favor the mercantile coalitions in the North. Since ratification of the Constitition, developed during the CC and including the EC, required only nine of thirteen participating, some sort of shenanigans (um collusion) had to be going on between the monied guys.
I'm not a big fan of of the electoral college, but direct popular vote scares the beejesus outta me. Thoughts on alternatives to the EC built during the CC. Current mechanisms to keep the mob in check may be thrust aside in the very near future. Hold on for the ride.