While we just posted about the candidate sueing over them missing it, it’s also said on other places that they did file in time — well they filed with dummy candidates or something to be on the ballot, but not with the actual candidates, and they would update with the proper people. So the filing date actually doesn’t apply to any part holding a convention….. that holds power.
We’ll see… Actually we’ll see the case get taken to court, people realizing that this type of thing shouldn’t be done. Tons of people getting in an uproar, then it being brushed under the table in the wonderous mind-washing abilities of the mind-numbing speakers we call the establishment.
Right now the big thing is the hacked “Palin” yahoo e-mail account that was used for state business. Now while this is bad on many levels (from being able to hide and delete messages that otherwise would’ve been saved to just bad business practices all around), it just goes to show how sometimes people are either technologically “dumb” or just “smart” in a way that you’d never want them working for you.
It’s “dumb” in the sense that you should never do that. Personal E-mail is for just that: personal non-work related stuff (although I, being the president of a corporation, sometimes use a personal account for work things — it’s only when things sent with my work address seem to get “lost” [strange company name - it sometimes triggers spam filters when I first contact someone as it's an acronym]).
It’s “smart” in the way that it frees the people to do illegal activities without any accountability or records for the activities. So instead of the person being nailed for selling trade secrets (or illegal appropriations for funds), everyone think’s it’s all OK.
Which is it with Palin? Who really knows completely; although the latter will always be in the back of a person’s mind.
The problem with this happening, either with politicians or employees [which are really employees], is:
- it leads to the possibility for dishonest things happening with no ability to trace it
- it allows potential confidential information to be seen by third parties, archived or hacked with no proof it happened (imagine if yahoo/google/hotmail got hacked) or proof if yours was
- it allows information meant not to ever be disclosed to be sent, with no records it was
- it allows people to do illegal things without any papertrail (or electronic trail)
- it allows information to be removed sooner than it would be if done through proper channels
Basically, while it’s a good thing for personal communications — it’s a very bad thing for businesses —- even worse for governments as everything they do should be visible by the people.
Well I can’t say for certain, although it wouldn’t surprise me considering the difficulty in third parties getting on the ballot there, and the “two” parties seeming to think they’re not above the law, but are the law.
Nevertheless, Bob Barr Filed suit saying both parties missed the deadline and therefore shoudln’t be found on the ballot. Let’s be honest here, if there’s a deadline that all candidates need to abide by, and even if the major two parties don’t — too bad. It’s either the rule and guidelines for all, or it’s being used to intentionally block the other parties from having access to the people.
I have to say that this election is starting to get so far off track for what matters that it isn’t even funny. Oh, maybe in a comedy sketch way – but that’s not good for the country.
Now this election is getting categorized into a simple way: 2 old people, and 2 young people — where the “young” people are divided into the “black” man and the “f*able woman”. Already there’s people trying to figure out if they want to have a black man in office to prove they aren’t racist, or a woman they can “enjoy” whenever she’s on the TV.
Gotta love that right? War? Who cares! We want sexy people we can “enjoy” talking. And to think, before that it was about experience, and sometime long long ago (so it seems) it was about the war and human rights.
And I say “who cares”.
After all the stupid “celebrity” type of things going on around it, with giggly girls laughing and hiding their mouths when Obama is mentioned like he’s the next coming it just goes to show that he’s a great politician — he’s managed to convince a large number of people he isn’t one, he’s a celebrity!
All he is is a politician. One that managed to get elected, magaged to pull the wool over the american’s eyes by being the candidate for change….ing his views, beliefs and stances based on what will get him elected.
And then he picks someone that’s an even better politician! Isn’t that a wonderful thing? After all, the policiticans we have now have done such a wonderful job! People can’t afford housing, food’s more money than people make, people need to work 2-4 jobs per house to afford the bills…. meanwhile the politicians (the big ones in the news) always seem to have multiple houses, millions of dolalrs, and the ability to buy a small island or jet. Now that’s in touch with the common man!
[The above paragraph was sarcastic -- in case you didn't realize.]
So in the end it comes down to the one thing…. who really cares? It’s just another politician that’s been in politics so long that “the establishment” can be an alias.
Well apparently every single political party and candidate is for “change”! Obama’s the candidate for chang[ing his viewpoints]. Teh democrat party is the party for change! The republican party is the party for change! The party X is the party for change! Everyone’s the party for change!
Even in my town there’s a huge sign: Illinois republicans for change! Yet… for changing what? Based on the past in my town and county the only thing that’s changed is, well, how much stuff costs and the number of jobs (as in fewer). Politicians keep on doing the same thing as always, and rocking the boat isn’t allowed.
But they’re all for change. What’s more surprising than anything in my town at least is this: the republicans saying they’re for “change” are already in office! Makes you wonder — are they saying they did such a bad job these past years that they need change? And if so — why would someone re-elect them?
Sometimes you have to love the little psychological ploys. Say your for “change” and people think “change! We need change!!!” All the while they forget these same candidates are the same ones that approved or instituded the policies that you don’t want.
If only people actually paid attention — they might just vote for a person or party that’s truely for change.
This has to be without a doubt the biggest complaint in my family right now. It took my mother almost 5 years to finally get it despite her being unable to do any job — and the disability office’s attorney person (the guy who shows up to court to try and prevent you from getting it) saying in court “there’s nothing she can do, she should get it”. The judge commented it was unique for the attorney trying to “prevent” you from getting it doing an excellent job arguing the other point — even though after looking at the details he agreed without hesitation.
But it’s not her case that makes me think that politicians really need to overhaul this system…
Imagine a guy who’s a diabetic and takes insulin. Now picture that because of this is isn’t allowed to get a CDL (for one reason or another — but it’s a potential risk). Now imagine that he had been working (*cough* illegally *cough*) at a place that knew it (he had a CDL, but the state didn’t know at the time or laws changed or something). Now imagine he gets really sick and can’t work. Driver’s license comes up for renewal and… oops…. guess what? Can’t get a CDL anymore because the state found out! Which means, he can’t do that job anymore (despite not working at it for a few years due to the sickness). Calls up disability, know what they said? “Go back to driving a truck!” After a complete “huh” moment he said “I can’t get a CDL anymore, which means I can’t drive a truck” — they more or less just repeated the same thing, said it wasn’t their fault then told him to go back to working at a shoe factory (that closed 20 years prior), then another place (that closed more recently, but still closed). By then they’d reached his high school years. Two years, multiple useless politicians, multiple court dates and two attorney’s later he finally got it. Of course all his back pay went in paying all the loans worth up to fifty grand that they had to take out to live — so they weren’t living on the streets.
Then you have another man. Can’t work because he requires oxygen, and his workplace (due to OSHA requirements, and just an overall hazard) isn’t able to even enter the factory. Files for disability (2 years before retirement too) and has two diseases that are a life sentence — if he’s lucky he might live another 5 years. Denied — he’s supposed to “go back to working at the factory”. But like above, he can’t work at the factory due to state and federal regulations.
There’s something really wrong in the world when a state agency tells you that you won’t get something because you can do something that other agencies say you can’t do because of the reason you applied to get the something. [Really, that made sense -- I hope at least]. And all it does is hurt the people! When the person finally gets it, they go back to when you first applied — so it’s not like they’re getting that much more money. Meanwhile you have probably thousands of families all across the United States just on the brink of homelessness because they can’t work, and can’t get disability!
Want to hear something really funny? Politicians won’t help — but they still call for donations to get re-elected. Granted they probably don’t know who the people are directly and all, but it’s still funny.
Day in and out you can see multiple failures in governments. Now I won’t say it’s always the government’s fault as there could very well be good people in the lower branches or just people that try to do their best — they just get out shouted and out voted until they finally give up or keep on voting and feel a small piece of them die inside.
But there’s a dark side to the high gas prices, one that while could be fixed by simple changes in towns that are in place or available now in other places. What is it? It’s the inability for the fixed income people (won’t say “elderly” as not all fixed income are elderly) to actually get the food they need for life. There’s a number of people all over that rely on food service trucks to stop by every day and provide them with meals. In some areas, it’s done out of the “goodness” of the people (some get paid, but I’ve known some that don’t). As prices increase for gas, so do their costs.
I’ve seen in my own town these food delivery trucks becoming more and more scarce. I don’t know what happened to them! I know they still provide food, yet…. they’re almost never seen. Just a few months even I’d see them driving around and dropping off foil-covered dishes to homes. Now, scarcely a one. They can’t afford it. Even a few people I know in town have to have their own relatives make extra trips just to bring them food —- and while I understand that’s what one would expect, the point is they have to now because the other services are no longer available to them.
And where is the government during these times? Running all the way to the bank with the oil checks in hand? If not, you’d sure think they were. All they’d need to do is send money to their own people in the county to make sure they’re fed. After all, they’re quick to charge these people for taxes on their property and checks they get. Quick to take, but slow to give. And this is what people are voted in to do?
It’s said that a country (person, society, etc) can be judged by the treatment of the animals. Well I believe that’s one indication for sure — but how they treat any innocent or unable to take care of themselves as they once could (children/elderly) is even better. To think that there’s people not able to eat — people that need to eat more than others — can’t get food because people can’t afford to get it to them…. It’s a sad situation. I just wonder how many people will have to be hospitalized or die before the government would step in. But then, the government is more than willing to spend trillions in devices to kill; so I guess it shouldn’t be unexpected.
One thing I find completely shocking is just how many people are surprised when a politician running for office doesn’t vote the way they promise. Or in some cases vote the complete opposite despite it going against what everyone believes the politician stands (such as Obama and the FISA amendments). One month he’s for repealing the bill, the next he’s granting pardons and amendments to it. The internet goes into a fury over this “shocking” thing since he was supposed to be the candidate for “change” not “Bush version 2.0″ (“another Bush” as some are calling it).
But what I find more shocking than anything isn’t that he voted against how everyone expected — but that people actually are shocked that he did. As time goes on you hear the same basic things all the time, politicians doing the opposite of what they say they’ll do and what policies they were voted into office on. Some shock. Didn’t people realize that this who “change” Obama was referring to was an advertising ploy more than a political stance? If you’re really the candidate for “change” you shouldn’t have to say anything. People should be able to see it in your actions. They should be able to see it in your life prior (I won’t say “political” life as a people stay true to themselves, and it’s not always the same — not to mention people aren’t born politicians).
People keep on talking about how the lines between democrat and republican are clear and set. Yeah…right. If that were the case they’d have completely different ideas on everything, and it’d be the same throughout the party. But, it’s not. It’s down to the individual’s personal beliefs. And even in the parties, these same people saying they’re so “different” also use terms like “liberal” and “conservative”. So you’ve got liberal democrats and conservative republicans, but also conservative democrats and liberal republicans (which some would say they’re in the wrong party). They’re so tangled up and trying to say how different they are, that when you boil a lot away — they all accept corporation donations, they don’t all vote the way you’d expect them to (go against their party), and in the end even if you have a few good ones that do what’s right – they get shoved aside and outvoted by the others.
So this year, just like all others, you get to choose between two candidates. The Demoblicans (or Repubocrats) — however you want to combine the two into one. In the end, doesn’t really matter. They might have different goals to get to a point, they might have slightly different ways to get there, but in the mish-mash of political parties running the US government, you’ll end up with the same thing we always have — something in the middle that people hate, politicians love, and more political fodder to fuel the next mud slinging campaign.
Or…. you could vote for a completely different party. One that’s ideals and goals are so apart from both of those that they conflict on almost everything. Your choice. You could vote for the lesser of two evils, or cast a vote for a third party — telling the two that not only did you take the time out to vote, but you didn’t vote for them. So then when the lesser of two evils gets elected, they’ll be sent a signal that they weren’t even really wanted in. And anyone worth anything would take notice.
