A blog about News.
|
Depressing Christmas cards Leading Catholic: Disney has corrupted kids Kid comes before designer jeans Predicting the stock market Judge: Obese fliers should get two airline seats Palin's unfortunate interview backdrop! Record number of pot plants seized in state Safe haven or easy way out? Where's the good gas prices news? McDonald's shines in bad economy June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Would you vote for $1 million?
Arizona is considering a plan to offer $1 million to a randomly selected voter during elections as an incentive to get more people to vote.
A story by Associated Press reporter Paul Davenport says the proposal will be on the Nov. 7 ballot. No one is being offered $1 million in that election so the turnout — just people who vote because it's the right thing to do — may not be extraordinarily high. Is this what America needs to get its duff into the ballot box? I wonder how many people in other countries would give a million for a chance to vote. And I wonder if the chance to win $1 million would make for better or worse voters. Posted by Steve E. Swenson 21 comments from 12 users
1
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Aug 10, 2006 at 07:35 PM
So right, Steve. That's how I have come to look at Mocus. He gets off funny ones sometimes.("Dem-a-lem-a-ding-dongs".... still makes me giggle) posted by
steveeswenson
on Aug 10, 2006 at 06:53 PM
Oddly enough, Mocus sometimes makes fun of me. He thinks some of the things I say and do are liberal.But Mocus is one of the most entertaining people we have on these blogs. And one of the funniest. So I suggest you look at Mocus' rants like I do Stephen King horror books -- look for the humor and dwell on it. posted by
dusty1215
on Aug 10, 2006 at 05:28 PM
Did mocus just fall off the turnip truck or what? He loves to put everyone that disagrees with his view of the world into a nasty little box. He also enjoys belittling people with opposing views..this is typical of Bushian nitwits. Their only recourse when faced with logic is to attack the individual. Right on Mocus...I will defend your right to be a total jerkwad, uninformed mouthpiece for the Shrub's administration to my death..On second thought..maybe not. posted by
anonymous
on Aug 10, 2006 at 05:23 PM
Islamofascists, I see you have been reading the Bush book, Diplomacy for Dummies, mucus.
What do we want? RACIAL PROFILING AND NO LIBERAL MULTICULTURAL BULLCRAP !!! When do we want it ? NOW!!!!, did that hurt saying so loud so many times? Geez, I am shocked that a Repubikens can have such evil thoughts, they obviously go them directly from God, through Pat Robertson , of course. The articulate way you put that message out, is outstanding, what rank did you place in at the Hitler School of Compassion? Well no matter your have made yourself understood well, your are the girl! posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Aug 10, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Bush follows christian values? So, I guess it's christian to underfund education, start wars, lie to the world, order soldiers to torture (and lie about it) and, uhhhh let's see, sit and do nothing while people in New Orleans drowned. Yeah real christian of him.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Aug 10, 2006 at 03:38 PM
Actually, Moke, it was liberal Denmark whose newspaper published the bomb-turban cartoon -- and stuck to their guns, refusing to condone censorship.I'll even agree with you that radical Islam is worse than radical Christianity. The difference is, the radical Muslims are at a safer distance and plague some other part of the world with their religious-state fascism. The American Taliban directly threatens us. posted by
randomfactor
on Aug 10, 2006 at 01:34 PM
Warren, I didn't like Lieberman as a VP candidate either--and he got worse after it was apparent that voters wouldn't put him in the top spot either. "Three-way tie for third" indeed. . I don't want to "savage" Lieberman. I just want him to go away for six years and *THINK* about what he did. It's a time-out. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Aug 10, 2006 at 01:20 PM
If Clinton pretended to be a middle-of-the-roader, it was an act that he sustained until the end of the year 2000. The wuss cowed to the Religious Right almost as badly as does Bush. posted by
mattloch
on Aug 10, 2006 at 11:48 AM
1) We were in a declared State of War with Germany.2) They we saboteurs, soldiers trained by the military wearing civilian clothing, not military uniforms, and so could be tried as "spies" under the rules of War. 3) The Gitmo "detainees" have not been charged with any crimes, and are being held indefinitely as "suspects". 4) The saboteurs were caught red-handed and admitted their crime(s). 5) FDR's tribunals had legal protections Bush has not put into his "tribunals". 6) "Enemy combatants" is a make-believe term, like "widget" or "compassionate conservative". 7) FRD didn't permit the torture of the prisoners, whether by the OSS or the military. 8) If you can get pissy about the president arguing what "is" means, we can get pissy about the president arguing what "torture" means. Nobody ever died from getting a bl*wjob. 9) The Red Cross and lawyers have free access to prisoners of war. Neither is the case in Gitmo. 10) How many people in Gitmo were on U.S. soil, caught with explosives, and were planning on blowing up military or dual-use infrastructure? . This is not a discussion you want to get involved in WSJ. Just do what Alberto Gonzales did in front of that committee last week and clam up. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Aug 8, 2006 at 09:56 AM
Well WSJ, that is how the media will most likely look at it, but I can only assume that you have never heard Ned Lamont speak. He is not the wacko liberal that you (or joementum) make him out to be. He actually didn't even want to run. He tried to recruit someone else, but nobody would try to go up against a long time senator like Lieberman, so he decided to do it himself. His popularity started by bloggers talking about him and spreading by word of mouth, but when the people in CT started listening to him they liked him. He really seems like a good guy aside from his politics. He is not just running as anti-war. He believes that congress isn't doing its job of providing checks on the presidency, and Joe Liberman is part of the problem. Honestly, I can't figure out why he hasn't joined the republican party. They sure seem to like him more than democrats do.I really think you misunderstand the blogosphere (perhaps on purpose). Howard Dean is not leading "kook left-wing bloggers." Blogs are a chance for every day Americans that can type in a box to express their opinions, and it turns out not too many people are happy with how things are going in this country. If you want to denegrate their opinions as being fed to them by someone else, you're missing the point. This is democracy in action. The people are speaking, and people like Howard Dean are finally listening to them. We've had our politicians listening to the highest bidder for way too long. posted by
randomfactor
on Aug 7, 2006 at 10:54 AM
My "low-level putz" was a Congressman--Bob Ney of Ohio. Going the way of Delay, Cunningham, Jerry Lewis, and numerous others with "R" after their names. If Mollohan stepped down from the Ethics Committee, more power to him. They had to drag DeLay away from power--and I'm loving it that he can't get off the ballot in Texas, even with the scam he tried to pull. Mollohan's opponent lied about serving in the Gulf War, by the way. That makes him a prime Republican candidate, I guess.. Lots of folks accepted trips from Abramoff. The only ones who engaged in quid-pro-quo were Republicans, and they're going DOWN. Abramoff's man Brent Wilkes is singing: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com... . There were, indeed, outrages in Florida. They were perpetrated by Republicans. Including Katherine Harris, who is *ALSO* going down, silicone and all. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Aug 7, 2006 at 09:25 AM
Are you saying that Democrats tried to steal the election in Florida 2000? Yeah, I guess that's why Bush/Cheney had to have the Supreme court stop the recount before they were even finished. Uh Huh.I do agree that elections officials should never be elected or partisan. There are enough non partisan independents in this country to be able to fill the spots. posted by
mattloch
on Aug 7, 2006 at 08:24 AM
That's why they have paper "backup" ballots, Warren. Nice way to come up with a theoretical problem to blame on Dems to respond to actual historic problems created by Repubs, by the way. The least you could have done was mention the 1960 presidential results from Illinois (Chicago) and how it swung the election to JFK.
posted by
randomfactor
on Aug 7, 2006 at 06:59 AM
Why on earth would I want to do that? You don't think I'm a Republican, do you?. http://www.house.gov/judici... . ANOTHER crooked Ohio Republican bit the dust this morning, by the way. posted by
randomfactor
on Aug 6, 2006 at 03:04 PM
No, Warren, I call not having enough working voting machines to handle expected crowds something other than "laziness." I call three, four, five-hour waits to vote "voter suppression" when it happens in precincts expected to have heavy Democratic turnout, and not Republican areas.. I call it suppression when a list of "convicted felons" used to purge the voter rolls in Florida has many, many non-felons who are dropped from the rolls because they have a name LIKE a felon--yet Republican voters don't seem to have that same problem. . My solution? Do what Oregon does. Everyone votes on paper, by mail, and has a long period of time to get the votes in. They seem to count the votes just as quickly as California does. posted by
tonyh
on Aug 5, 2006 at 07:05 PM
Voting is FREE and it's more convenient than ever before. The Polls stay open long hours. Even absentee voting is available. The law says that your employer MUST let you go vote.Where's the suppression? I don't see it. If a person chooses not to take the time to regester and vote, there's nothing anybody else can do. If you don't vote, there's nobody to blame but yourself. posted by
randomfactor
on Aug 5, 2006 at 03:33 PM
While *THIS* idea is a bad one, I support efforts to remove any roadblocks in the way of voting. As Warren pointed out, Republicans generally win only when they can suppress Democratic voters.
posted by
JeffHarbin
on Aug 4, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Worst. Idea. Ever. For all the reasons posted above and more. posted by
dgrealish
on Aug 4, 2006 at 09:35 AM
What a bad idea! Concider the consequences of elections fueled by the chance for voters to win a million dollars. MyLefteFoot points out several. Who comes up with these ideas?
posted by
Goat
on Aug 4, 2006 at 08:23 AM
I would not support that idea.
posted by
MyLefteFoot
on Aug 4, 2006 at 07:53 AM
BAD idea. Who wants an election influenced by people who wouldn't bother to vote unless they had a miniscule chance of winning one million dollars? These "voters" would show up at the election booths not knowing anything about the candidates, propositions or bond issues. Do we really wan't their input? Please don't entice them to vote. If they can't get themselves to a voting booth from a sense of civic duty, they need to stay home!
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |
