KaskadskyjKozak

There's a lot of shitty software out there. I'm amazed anything works sometimes. I don't trust the people writing this software, nor do I trust the people installing and running it. There are hacks and backdoors to just about any system. In this case we are talking about tens of thousands of client applications connecting to servers from diffuse locations.

Electronic systems could be manipulated in very insidious ways. We can not trust them. Here is an example. There are 100,000 registered voters. 60,000 actually vote. A hacker electronically fabricates votes for say 5,000 of the remaining 40,000 - enough to turn an election. Where would the paper trail be? Logs of requests to a server? The requests could be made to look legit.

It doesn't need to be posted - it's common sense, and part of Leave No Trace guidelines.

Republican In Name Only

I'm a software engineer, and I'm telling you all: don't trust this software. It can be hacked, misused, and abused, and who knows how well it was tested in the first place (there are always bugs that software developers miss anyways - with testing or not).

Hmmm. I'm a liberal progressive, and I value self-reliance and independence. I'm also conservative, in that I believe in conserving resources such as clean air and water --recycling, energy conservation, and all that. I tend to think of political conservatives as very materialistic and resistant to policies that discourage consumption of developable land --and therefore not conservative in an economic sense. There are a lot of RINOs out there (or should I say CINOs in this thread)

with the new congress, at least the parks might get the funding they need to make repairs/maintenance now

Actually I think there's something to that. Being over-simple here, conservatives believe in self-reliance and independence; liberals believe in social, community support (it takes a village). Both traits are useful in an evolutionary sense. Nature has hedged its bets.

How about doing away with the senate too - same principal.

That's the Democratic modus operandi: when you lose, bring in the lawyers.

It's ironic how when the R's win, the left screams that there is widespread voting fraud, disenfranchisement, not to mention a stupid electorate. But when the D's win, nothing of the kind. And note the class shown by R's in close races: they concede rather than drag in lawyers and recounts. Something the D's should take and example from (fat chance).

More levity

I think proportional representation rather than runoffs would be better, but otherwise I agree.

More evidence that lefties are Marxists in (a thinly-veiled) disguise. There should only be only party on the ballot, and one party member in office at every level of government, ne pravda li tovarish?

Wrong. The laws enacted under the "Contract" did not screw the economy. On the contrary, they occurred under Clinton's 1st administration - when we were moving towards balanced budgets (with higher taxes) and very strong economic growth. You need to pull your head out and think for once before you open your foul mouth. And I was not intending to argue the merits of the "Contract with America" in any case, you moron. The point was simply that when the R's took over in 1994, they had an agenda that they pushed hard, and got successes doing so. The D's now have a similar opportunity. I don't hear any concrete "agenda" from them yet, however, except to engage in endless investigations and recriminations.

Contract with America. Welfare Reform. And so on.

Yes, they were visionaries, who were restricted by reality, knowing they couldn't wave a magic wand and fix these problems, but they could establish a framework in which, over time, this could be accomplished.

Wow. Your rapier political insight is incredible. I would have never thought of that, indeed, none of us would have. How do you do it? Your logic is underwhelming. You claimed that Bush and the R's "got the message" of the election, implying that that is why he tossed Rummy. I counter that he wanted to do that all along, election or not. You're such a worthless windbag. Time to add you to the ignore flag. Bugger off, dickhead.

I like that we elect the president - otherwise you'd have the legislature picking your executive. But I'd like to see a third and fourth party at least. The mood in the country is ripe for this right now. Unfortunately, there are huge barriers to entry in setting up viable, competitive alternatives; the D's and R's hold a monopoly right now.

I have no idea what you meant and, apparently, neither do you. May the clue bird take a dump in your vicinity. (Hint: McCain, campaign-finance reform, etc.)

Beware of Olybomber!

Newsflash: Bush is not running for office in two years. I think they've wanted to ditch Rummy for some time now, but just didn't have the balls - it would look "bad" - you know conceding that you made mistakes and all. Now it is "safe" to toss him. In this case they miscalculated - kind of like trying to shoot the moon in hearts and taking 25 points.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

You are quite correct. Many worthless pieces of crap are reelected term after term just because they have a D or R by their name... and tenure. Once one of these lucky saps gets in, and gets relected once or twice, they are golden.

This is a knee jerk suggestion from someone who obviously has little experience working with any organization with a national footprint. Lobbyists are essential for a non-governmental to know what is happening in the legislature and represent their constituents effectively. They are an important way for the members of any organization to stay in touch with what their legislators are up to, which, in my book, is a very good thing. They help achieve the 'transparency' people like you so loudly call for. If you wanted the environment protected, who would you give money to: Earth First! (no lobbyists, jailed activists, virtually no public support, little money, kno real legislative action network) Ducks Unlimited or the Sierra Club (Lobbyists, broad public support, lots of money, effective legislative action networks). Sure, there are corrupt lobbyists, just like there are corrupt legislators. The solution is not to get rid of lobbyists, which are such an important part of being heard in government, but to implement strict rules against corruption, whether by lobbyists, legislators, or anyone else. what was that about taking things "literal" as a refuge for the simple minded, Trashie? you damn well know who/what I mean by "lobbyists" whose influence corrupts our government.