Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: DavidB on 3 August 2005, 19:27
-
This is my first post on this forum; thank you for creating it.
My real name is David Blomstrom, and I've been fighting Microsoft for several years. I worked for the Seattle School District, which was effectively taken over by Bill Gates, which helps explain why it gets worse every year.
In 1999, I learned just how corrupt politics is when I ran for a seat on the Seattle School Board. The highlights included receiving my first computer virus, a gift from Bill Gates Senior. It was a real eye opener, and it accomplished just the opposite of what it was supposed to do - persuade me to butt out of politics. In fact, I later became the first candidate for public office in the nation (that I know of) to make Microsoft-bashing a campaign issue.
I ran for office three more times, twice for state office. However, our election system is utterly broken; it's almost impossible to even get any publicity outside the Internet - and even the Internet has proven a general failure.
I wated to run for Seattle Mayor this time around, but I couldn't come up with the money for the filing feee. (I was laid off three years ago.)
I'm also the webmasterof www.freedomware.us (http://www.freedomware.us), another anti-Microsoft site. It's woefully underdeveloped, but I'll get back to it when I find the time. I hope to add a forum some day, too. So this will make a great example to study.
There are obviously many, many things to discuss about Microsoft, including its exploitation of public school students, Bill Gates' phony philanthropy, the Preston, Gates & Ellis scandal(s), M$ relations with George W. Bush and on and on.
Right now, I'd just like to introduce myself and ask how many other members here are serious about nailing Microsoft. Ranting is fine; in fact, it's a great strategy for smearing Microsoft's name and letting the general public know there are dissenters.
But how many of you care enough to really study Microsoft's politics, create an anti-Microsoft project or support an anti-Microsoft candidate?
During my last two campaigns, when I was speaking out against Microsoft, I was utterly stunned by the refusal of even high-tech websites to publicize my campaign. I wrote a brief article for SlashDot.org; it was rejected. No Linux journals would mention me.
This is powerful evidence of Microsoft's stunning influence. I've long suspected that Microsoft has largely infiltrated the Linux community here in the U.S., and I've encountered open source groups that were actually Microsoft operatives.
I'm hoping this forum is different. So how many of you hate Microsoft (the famously corrupt corporation), and how many of you also hate Bill Gates personally? And how many of you are interested in actually working to stomp Microsoft, whether by promoting Firefox or fighting M$ in the political arena???
-
Whoa, finally someone's serious about eradicating Microsoft.
You should post up them articles you've written. [EDIT: Nevermind, just realised they're on your website, which didn't work the first time I tried (the link in your post points to http://freedomware/us)]
I'm definetly interested!
-
I can tell you that this is an anti-Microsoft website that has been outdated. We're now in the proces of creating new content.
I'm interested in the infiltration of Microsoft into open source groups, as you claim.
How did you become aware of it?
[EDIT]Nice website. We may be able to use your articles here :)[/EDIT]
-
Whoa, finally someone's serious about eradicating Microsoft.
You should post up them articles you've written.
I'm definetly interested!
Hey, PiratePenguin. It may take me a while to post any articles; I'm simply overwhelmed with projects right now. But here are a few ideas.
First, it seems like no one is really fighting Microsoft! Sure, lots of people grouse about M$, and some even take potshots at Bill Gates. But the resistance is neither organized nor determined. They often shoot me down for being too hostile!
There's no question that many anti-Microsoft forces are actually Microsoft operatives PRETENDING to be anti-Microsoft. That makes things far more difficult, but it still isn't impossible to fight back and win. We just have to use our brains.
Let's ask ourselves where the big battles against Microsoft are being fought. It seems to be they're pretty much limited to the courtroom and the marketplace. Of course, anyone who tries to fight Microsoft in the marketplace is begging to be massacred.
Many open source software fans insist that it's just a matter of time before Linux kicks Microsoft's butt. That's delusional. Microsoft has heavily infiltrated the open source community and has employed a thousand dirty tricks to keep open source at bay. That doesn't mean open source can't win, but it's not guaranteed. And even a delayed Linux victory would be very costly. We need to cut M$ off at the knees NOW, not wait ten more years for Linux to gradually erode its market share.
The courtroom isn't much better, since the U.S. legal system is so corrupt (and few attorneys are more powerful or corrupt than Bill Gates' father, who's a founding parter of the Seattle lawfirm Preston, Gates & Ellis).
I think we should extend the battlefield to the media (with an emphasis on the Internet) and politics. Though there might appear to be plenty of Microsoft bashing as it is, a close insepection reveals that most of it is actually quite insipid and unorganized. Remember, Bill Gates' wife and bridge partner both site on the Washington Post's board of directors, and there must be thousands of Microsoft operatives who post on political forums like Democratic Underground.
So we need to speak out more strongly and intelligently, and we need to question each other, attempting to root out operatives. I think it's especially important to make the point that Microsoft corruption isn't just an example of "business." Corruption is inappropriate and unacceptable. Nor is the stench confined to Microsoft itself; as founder and de facto CEO, Bill Gates is personally responsible for Microsoft's crimes, and he should be vilified just as ferociously as George W. Bush.
In fact, that's one particular tactic I pioneered - connecting Bill Gates and George W. Bush. The last time I ran for public office, I included this sentence in my statement in the Voters Pamphlet:
"I'm the only candidate speaking out against America's greatest traitors, George aWol Bush (http://www.jail4bush.org) and his pal Bill Gates (http://www.freedomware.us), who are cruelly exploiting children in public schools that have been effectively privatized."
It would be much more effective if more people ran for office on an anti-Microsoft platform and made the Gates-Bush connection.
Although resistance often seems futile when the enemy is MICROSOFT, I do see some positive signs. Ironically, one of my favorite examples is DemocraticUnderground.com. I say ironic, because I think that website is corrupt.
But I've seen a major switch in attitudes towards Microsoft. When I used to posted on DemocraticUnderground, threads that focused on Microsoft typically erupted into arguments, with the pro-Microsoft forces generally touting Bill Gates' "philanthropy."
I was banned from DemocraticUnderground, apparently for criticizing my corrupt teachers union, though I think my Microsoft bashing also had something to do with it. However, I've seen virtually no support for Microsoft in recent months. When people criticize Microshaft, almost no one defends it. It's really striking - and encouraging.
I encourage anyone who really wants to defeat Microsoft to make Microsoft-bashing part of their lifestyle. It doesn't take much effort to promote Firefox on your website or insert the words "Microsoft sucks" (linked to an anti-Microsoft website) in your signature on a political forum.
Little gestures like these do make a difference, especially when multiplied by hundreds and thousands of people.
I'm especially trying to connect with people in other nations. I've simply given up on my country. Every major institution in the U.S. is corrupt. Liberal Seattle is actually one of the most corrupt cities in the U.S. As I noted earlier, the open source community in the U.S. is generally pathetic from a political perspective.
But there's a growing hatred for the United States - or at least for our corporate-managed government - in other lands. I think this is where victory lies. I fear that Americans may never reform their government; like Nazi Germany and totalitarian Japan, they'll just keep plodding along until some other nation or coalition of nations kicks our ass.
So I would like to encourage citizens of other nations to bash Bill Gates just as viciously as they do George W. Bush. I'd like them to study Bill Gates and learn how he exploits children in his own backyard. I'd like to see other nations produce killer open source operating systems that can finally defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. (Why isn't Linux making headlines during the YEARS between Windows XP and Longhorn??? This is the perfect time to nail Microsoft!)
If the global community makes enough noise, they can help educate the most stupid people on Earth - Americans - and motivate any real activists in the U.S.
Let's hope Microsoft's fortunes begin a serious - and terminal - decline in the very near future.
-
I can tell you that this is an anti-Microsoft website that has been outdated. We're now in the proces of creating new content.
I'm interested in the infiltration of Microsoft into open source groups, as you claim.
How did you become aware of it?
[EDIT]Nice website. We may be able to use your articles here :)[/EDIT]
THANK YOU for not asking me for "proof" that Microsoft has infiltrated open source groups! People often ask me that, then call me a liar when I fail to produce a smoking gun document. It's obviously much more complex than that.
Let's start at square one by imaging three circles repesenting Microsoft, the general public and "communications" (including the media, Internet, etc.).
Imagine that the third circle is filled with anti-Microsoft diatribes. Obviously, Bill Gates doesn't like that - but what can he do about it?
Since the U.S. is unofficially a democracy, he can't tell people to shut up. But remember the adage, "If you can't beat'em, join'em"?
That's just what Bill Gates and other corporate wh*res do. They create phony philanthropical organizations and enlist operatives to pose as critics and activists. To be believable, they have to criticize Microsoft. But they do it in a really clever way. Instead of focusing on a $1 billion government boondoggle, they may focus on a lesser scandal. Or maybe they grudgingly admit that "At least, Bill Gates gives to charity!" (even if he really doesn't).
Seattle left-wing columnist Geov Parrish (Seattle Weekly, Eat The State) is a corporate operative who appears to be right on target most of the time. I was his biggest fan until he stabbed me in the back.
I began studying him and discovered that he lowers the boom during elections. He does a great job of attacking George Bush and Bill Gates in his articles, then endorses candidates who are effectively working for Bush and Gates!
So we need to apply this logic to our investigation: Nature abhors a vaccum, so corporations attempt to fill vaccums with phony critics and activists (e.g. operatives or "gatekeepers").
Next, we look for evidence that this is in fact occurring. My favorite clues include track records and websites. It's amazing how many activists and politicians do not have track records. When they ask for your vote, you decide to research them and spend half an hour on Google trying to find out the most basic information.
If they're genuine reformers, why don't they put a biography online? Activists who don't even have websites obviously don't have a clue. And most who do have websites have unbelievably lame websites. After all, how can you hope to reform America - or a single institution - without educating the public?
So let's apply this to the open source community. How are they fighting Microsoft? They promote open source software and sling a little mud here and there - but they're incredibly lame.
I've suggested on a number of forums that Firefox should be promoted as the unofficial browser of activists. Every activist and reformer in the U.S. should promote Firefox on his or her website. "Socialists" around the world should promote Firefox.
But the open source community has just laughed at my suggestion.
I've tried to interest open source groups in Bill Gates' exploitation of public schools, but they don't care. "All I care about is a good operating system."
Many have blasted me for my hostility. Many of them think Microsoft is corrupt, but Bill Gates is basically a nice guy. Even people who hate Bill Gates get upset when I hurl epithets at him.
We could challk all of this up to apathy and cluelessness if it wasn't so extensive. It almost seems as if the open source community is making an effort to close its ears to Microsoft criticism.
When I ran for public office, becoming the first candidate in the U.S. to make Microsoft a campaign issue, I should have received some publicity in both the mainstream media and the open source community.
Now, if someone wants to argue that my candidacy was a joke, I was unhinged, or whatever, that's fine. But my campaign WAS newsworthy nevertheless. Yet I couldn't even get one little blurb on SlashDot.org. That's utterly bizarre. For crying out loud, I was blasting Bill Gates in his own backyard!
Not one member of the Seattle Linux group ever contacted me during TWO anti-Microsoft campaigns. And I recently had an encounter with one of their bigwigs at a most unusual location. I can't go into detail, but I said to myself, "Go figure."
During my last campaign for public office, one of my opponents was a woman named Juanita Doyon. She was a first-time candidate and a total bimbo, with nothing intelligenet to say. In contrast, I was running my fourth political campaign, and I had over a dozen websites online discussing a wide variety of topics.
Amazingly, if you typed our names into Google, hers produced three or four times as many hits. She was obviously being manipulated.
There's an online high-tech magazine based in the UK. I can't think of the name offhand, but they even published an article about her. She reportedly discovered that the Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction's website was linked to a pornographic site and blew the whistle. Sheez, is that really international news?
I contacted this outfit and asked them how they learned about this story and why it qualifed as news, but, of course, they never replied.
I also recall reading about some corporate bigwig joining Redhat's board of directors.
I've had many experiences and discoveries that help fill in the puzzle, but many of them wouldn't make sense to anyone who isn't familiar with Seattle politics. On, I just remembered one that's particularly interesting. I joined an open-source forum and was delighted to discover an anti-Microsoft post by a member of the manamgement. I posted a response, bsically saying "Good job!" and discussing Bill Gates' exploitation of education and Seattle.
The reaction was startling. People began criticizing me. When I stood my ground, they became more vicious, eventually banning me.
The name of this forum is CodeWalkers. I think it's at http://www.codewalkers.com - and I believe the conversation is still online. They rigged it so I can no longer access their site, but I think it still registers in Google. If you find it interesting, I suggest you make a copy of the converstation before they erase it. I think I already have a copy in my files.
I think you can find this conversation at one of these locations:
http://codewalkers.com/forum/index.php?action=displaythread&forum=pasture&id=58&realm=default
http://codewalkers.com/archives/pasture/58.html
Returning once again to logic, it would be foolish to assume that Microsoft would not attempt to infiltrate the open source community. The question, then, is this: To what extend has Microsoft succeeded?
Considering the extraordinary games Microsoft played with its SCO venture and the phenomenal success of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's public relations program (convincing the world that Bill Gates is a philanthropist), I think the answer becomes fairly obvious.
-
I would like to see proof. I'm not a big fan of unsubstatiated claims.
Innocent unril proven guilty, and all.
Right now this all seems like "I ran for public office and evil M$ made me lose!".
-
I would like to see proof. I'm not a big fan of unsubstatiated claims.
Innocent unril proven guilty, and all.
Right now this all seems like "I ran for public office and evil M$ made me lose!".
The problem with "proof" is that everyone has their own definition of what it is. Do you want a statement that says, "I confess that everything David Blomstrom says about Microsoft is true," signed by Bill Gates and witnessed by a notary public?
Many right-wingers especially like to say, "Innocent until convicted by a judge and jury." Of course, that means George Bush and his entire administration are decent, law-abiding citizens - even though all intelligent people know otherwise.
if it's so hard to prove that George W. Bush is a crook, how can we prove that some Linux group is actually working for Microsoft?
Instead, we should be focusing on EVIDENCE and LOGIC, which together can add up to proof - or something reasonably close.
Do you think Bill Gates would NOT try to infiltrate the open source community? Frankly, I think that would be a very stupid assessment.
And if Bill Gates did try to infiltrate the open source community, do you think he would fail? Do you think it would be impossible for Bill Gates to recruit a single individual to pose as an innocent bystander and join a Linux group? Again, stupid assumption.
Do you want me to prove that Bill Gates' wife sits on the Washington Post's board of directors? If you're too lazy to track that information down yourself, just say so, and I'll post a link later.
Do you doubt that I ran for office? That shouldn't be hard to verify - after all, I did so FOUR TIMES. So visit Google and try to find some of the articles or posts that were written about me in various media, high-tech forums, etc. There are virtually none.
Visit http://www.seattleweekly.com and type "David Blomstrom" into their archives. Half of what they've written about me over the years were carefully calculated insults, and the rest was blather. During my fourth bid for office, they didn't mention my name ONCE. That's pretty bizarre.
I have no way of proving that Bill Gates Senior sent me a computer virus, along with a veiled threat. But if anyone would like to write about this, feel free to visit Seattle and ask me to submit to a polygraph test (as long as you pay the bill). I'll gladly oblige.
Incidentally, I never said "Microsoft made me lose." In fact, a coalition of corporations, media and operatives were arrayed against me. I'll write much more about that when I find time.
In the meantime, I'm going to throw your challenge right back in your face. PROVE that you aren't a Microsoft operative. Do you know of any other candidates for public office in the U.S. who have attacked Microsoft as part of their campaigns? If so, how did they fare?
Are you aware of any high-tech journals or open source groups that wrote about them?
If you're up for some really stimulating challenges, I'll gladly oblige. I'm going to be gone for a few hours, but I can give you some challenges that ought to prove awfully interesting. They'll help prove I'm not a phony, and they may tell us something about you at the same time.
-
Welcome to the forum David. Rep+ for good first post.
-
I agree :thumbup:
-
Well David, I believe the way you critisize Bill Gates and George Bush isn't working out at all.
On your website, you have a picture of Bush photoshopped with a swatsika and the famous Bill Gates picture.
Now let's presume that I should live in the US, in Seattle, and I was searching on the Internet for candidate websites.
Even if I agreed with your ideas, I still would find your website to be immature and chaotic.
Really, one stupid picture can ruin it. There are also too many animated stuff to distract my attention and which are very annoying.
Your articles are great, but you're lowering yourself to radicalism. I believe you're shooting yourself in the foot.
-
http://www.freedomware.us/world/eur/nld/index.php
True. The Netherlands is filled with Microsoft whores and old judges that have no clue whatsoever about computers and internet.
Microsoft has succesfully infiltrated our schools and government to be Microsoft locked-in.
Novell is the only company in the Netherlands trying to lessen Microsoft market share, but is losing ground at the moment.
-
Bush deserves and should receive the death penalty, after the appropriate legal or quasi-legal formalities
What kind of nutjob are you? You are asking the world to support the execution of a man with no trial? That's insane! Perhaps he does deserve the death penalty. Perhaps he doesn't. Regardless of what you or I believe, it isn't up to us to decide. The death penalty is a very serious matter, and in the US, it is decided by a judge and jury. We aren't Old West posses, out for a hangin'. Law and order must be maintained, unless there is revolutionary action.
Calling for assassination (which is what peacetime death penalty without trial amounts to) is not a good way to make friends or get elected to office.
-
I think the death penalty should have no place in any modern civilized country.
-
Well David, I believe the way you critisize Bill Gates and George Bush isn't working out at all.
On your website, you have a picture of Bush photoshopped with a swatsika and the famous Bill Gates picture.
Now let's presume that I should live in the US, in Seattle, and I was searching on the Internet for candidate websites.
Even if I agreed with your ideas, I still would find your website to be immature and chaotic.
Really, one stupid picture can ruin it. There are also too many animated stuff to distract my attention and which are very annoying.
Your articles are great, but you're lowering yourself to radicalism. I believe you're shooting yourself in the foot.
That's a gray area. I agree with you to a point. That is, I'm well aware that my ideas and means of expressing them appear "radical" to many people. But let's define radical.
In common usage, I believe it has two meanings:
1) Weird or bizarre.
2) Anything outside the norm.
It's certainly not my intent to appear weird or bizarre. On the contrary, I go out of my way to embrace logic and ethics. But consider the second definition. Imagine an indvidual who preaches brotherly love and world peace. Would he be considered radical?
If he lived in Nazi Germany, the answer would be YES, because peace and goodwill were not the norm in Adolph Hitler's Germany.
I find myself in a simliar predicament. There's nothing more stupid than the average U.S. citizen, whose brain has been pulverized by a lifetime of the most sophisticated propaganda in world history, sensory overload (video games, a complex society, etc.) and terminal apathy.
I'm fascinated by the "socialism" - in the broadest sense of the word. But if I inserted the word "socialism" in a campaign statement, I'd instantly be branded a radical, even here in liberal Seattle. The problem is that Americans have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is - well, radical. They've been brainwashed into believing that anyone who wants to hold corrupt corporations (e.g. Microsoft) accountable is a socialist - in the strictest sense of the word.
In summary, I really don't know how to communicate to the sheeple, and I don't apologize for not knowing how. If you know of anyone who's doing a better job, please let me know.
But I'm certainly not going to practice business as usual and talk about the usual one or two insipid issues while kissing babies and praising voters for their intelligence when they're really dumber than ashtrays.
In some respects, I run futuristic campaigns. My statements may appear radical now, but I think they'll sound more sensible as more and more people get screwed by corporate America. I also know that things will never change until the general public changes its attitude. Voting as usual will only continue business as usual.
-
What kind of nutjob are you? You are asking the world to support the execution of a man with no trial? . . . Calling for assassination (which is what peacetime death penalty without trial amounts to) is not a good way to make friends or get elected to office.
Well, you just flunked Comprehension 101. Where on my website does it saying "without a trial"? And where did you find the word "assassinate"? For crying out loud, use some common sense: If I was calling for Bush's assassination, I'd be posting this message from prison.
To put it in perspective, consider the THOUSANDS (if not millions) of people who are calling George Bush's impeachment. Do you think they're asking a group of vigilantes to just kick Bush out of the White Hosue without a trial? Of course not!
They're simply stating their belief that Bush has committed crimes worthy of impeachment, and they're encouraging lawmakers to initiate the legal proceedings.
Ditto for Death4Bush. It's my belief that Bush's crimes deserve the harshest punishment the law can mete out. I think Bush should be legally prosecuted and sentenced, and I think that any sane and non-partisan jury would find him guilty on many counts.
But my Death4Bush campaign is about more than punishing Bush. It's also about freedom of speech.
I'm SO sick of hearing cowardly liberals whimper at the feet of right-wing bullies, afraid to say anythying the latter deem hostile, unhinged, un-American or unpatriotic.
I issued my statement partly because I knew it would be extremely provocative. In a sense, it was a dare. In effect, I said, "I believe George W. Bush deserves to be LEGALLY executed for his crimes, and I'm not afraid to sign my name to it. Better yet, I'm running for office and making it a campaign issue. You right-wingers who are so good at tyrannizing liberal pussies are welcome to turn your guns on me. Report me to the Secret Service, assassinate me, burn my home donw. You know where I live, so either put or or shut up."
Although I did received a few death threats, no one visited my home. In fact NO MEDIA even mentioned my Death4Bush campaign, including liberal and alternative media and the local, Seattle media.
That further confirms the extraordinary media corruption, which is obviously not limited to the traditional corporate media. Thus, I'd say I accomplished quite a bit with my Death4Bush statement, even if I never got elected.
-
For that matter, we probably did sound 'radical' to the businesspeople who read the Forbes article that classified Microsuck in a list of 'corporate hate sites'.
BTW, welcome to Microsuck! I fully support your campaign against the Bush regime. And socialism doesn't sound radical to me either! :thumbup:
-
I think the death penalty should have no place in any modern civilized country.
The United States isn't a modern civilized country.
-
That's a gray area. I agree with you to a point. That is, I'm well aware that my ideas and means of expressing them appear "radical" to many people. But let's define radical.
In common usage, I believe it has two meanings:
1) Weird or bizarre.
2) Anything outside the norm.
It's certainly not my intent to appear weird or bizarre. On the contrary, I go out of my way to embrace logic and ethics. But consider the second definition. Imagine an indvidual who preaches brotherly love and world peace. Would he be considered radical?
If he lived in Nazi Germany, the answer would be YES, because peace and goodwill were not the norm in Adolph Hitler's Germany.
I find myself in a simliar predicament. There's nothing more stupid than the average U.S. citizen, whose brain has been pulverized by a lifetime of the most sophisticated propaganda in world history, sensory overload (video games, a complex society, etc.) and terminal apathy.
I'm fascinated by the "socialism" - in the broadest sense of the word. But if I inserted the word "socialism" in a campaign statement, I'd instantly be branded a radical, even here in liberal Seattle. The problem is that Americans have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is - well, radical. They've been brainwashed into believing that anyone who wants to hold corrupt corporations (e.g. Microsoft) accountable is a socialist - in the strictest sense of the word.
In summary, I really don't know how to communicate to the sheeple, and I don't apologize for not knowing how. If you know of anyone who's doing a better job, please let me know.
But I'm certainly not going to practice business as usual and talk about the usual one or two insipid issues while kissing babies and praising voters for their intelligence when they're really dumber than ashtrays.
In some respects, I run futuristic campaigns. My statements may appear radical now, but I think they'll sound more sensible as more and more people get screwed by corporate America. I also know that things will never change until the general public changes its attitude. Voting as usual will only continue business as usual.
Still, the image of George Bush and the swastika is a bit silly because, well, America and Nazi Germany are not even similar. You could keep it if you believed that they are similar however, and stood by that.
I have no problem with the one of the twin-towers and Bush laughing, at least it makes sense.
-
For that matter, we probably did sound 'radical' to the businesspeople who read the Forbes article that classified Microsuck in a list of 'corporate hate sites'.
BTW, welcome to Microsuck! I fully support your campaign against the Bush regime. And socialism doesn't sound radical to me either! :thumbup:
Exactly. Many people would consider a name like "Microsuck" childish at best.
Again, this is a gray area; name calling can be both good or bad. On the negative side, it can make the name caller look bad. But, on the positive side, it can also slime the target - and if your target is corrupt, go for it?
Frankly, what weapons do we have besides words? Moreover, I've never been able to figure out why we should stop name calling when it works so well for Republicans. They're the masters of combat politics, and I think it's stupid to not give them a taste of their own medicine.
However, I think name calling should generally be accurate. I make certain that my target is corrupt before I start slinging mud, and I don't call them any specific names that aren't accurate. For example, I'd be reluctant to call Bill Gates a racist because I don't know if he is or not (though he appears to exploit racism).
Of course, words like "pig" and "media whore" can't always be categorized as accurate or not; they're just simple names that can be applied to just about anyone who's corrupt - one size fits all.
-
The UK isn't either but I think we're more civilized without the death penalty.
-
Exactly. Many people would consider a name like "Microsuck" childish at best.
Blame our pussy webmaster - this place used to be called FuckMicorsoft.com
-
Still, the image of George Bush and the swastika is a bit silly because, well, America and Nazi Germany are not even similar. You could keep it if you believed that they are similar however, and stood by that.
I have no problem with the one of the twin-towers and Bush laughing, at least it makes sense.
There are many similarities between Nazi Germany and the United States. I know - Hitler was elected, he was a good speaker, wasn't into drug abuse, and on and on.
But let's focus on both the leaders and the countries they (mis)lead. Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship. The United States' government has become increasingly authoritarian.
The Nazis murdered several million people. Depending on how far back you want to go, our government may have killed a few million people as well. We've certainly killed tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our government may not be as overtly racist as Nazi Germany - but Germany was a very homogenous nation. If George Bush started a program to exterminate African Americans, he'd face an unstoppable backlash by Jews, Hispanics, Asian Americans, etc.
Similarly, torture may not be as common in the 21st century U.S. as it was in Nazi Germany. Then again, I don't believe the Germans tortured people in front of ordinary citizens, either. It was generally a private operation. We've probably done more than any other nation since WWII Germany or Japan to promote torture, with other nations copying us.
Nazi Germany had a powerful military and was tyring to make an atomic bomb. We beat them to it - and used thousands of Japanese civilians as guinea pigs. George W. Bush has now started the biggest global arms race in wowrld history, even as the sick bastard plots more wars.
Frankly, I think it's stupid to suggest that we have to equal some score - like 6 million people murdered - before we can be compared to Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, George W. Bush could very well exceed that number. He's got the weapons, and he's proven his willingness to murder children and torture their parents.
Just as Nazi Germany was the greatest evil of that time period, so is the United States presently the greatest evil.
-
The UK isn't either but I think we're more civilized without the death penalty.
In general, the death penalty really isn't of major concern to me. I can life with it or without it. My biggest complaint is the corruption that's so pervasive in our legal system; it's scary having the death penalty when there are so many innocent people in prison.
However, I think the death penalty can be appropriate for certain situations. For starters, it's a real shocker - and, let's face it, there are times when people need to be shocked back to reality. Imagine if Americans turned on their TV's one day and saw George W. Bush being strapped into an electric chair. Do you think that might penetrate their incomprehensible stupidity? Do you think they might finally realize that this guy is literally a criminal?
The death penalty also have a lot to do with closure. Saying I don't like the death penalty because it's uncivilized is really very selfish. What about George Bush's greatest victims - the Iraqis? Do they not have a right to justice?
If a vote was taken, I suspect most Iraqis would favor execution as a suitable punishment for Bush's crimes. In fact, if I had the power, I'd simply turn him over to the Iraqis and let them do what they want with him. I'd give them Bill Gates as a bonus, too. :)
-
In fact, if I had the power, I'd simply turn him over to the Iraqis and let them do what they want with him. I'd give them Bill Gates as a bonus, too. :)
DAVIDB FOR PRESIDENT!
-
DAVIDB FOR PRESIDENT!
Ha, if I was elected president, I'd trade places with Hugo Chavez. I'd spend my free time chasing beautiful Venezuelan women and let him wrestle with Republicans and Microsoft. :)
-
Bush deserves and should receive the death penalty, after the appropriate legal or quasi-legal formalities
Am I the only one who thinks that the phrase "quasi-legal formalities" is ridiculous, especially where the death penalty is concerned.
I'm taking "quasi-legal" to mean "not really legal" or "sorta legal", and "formalities" to mean "something not really necessary, but done only to maintain appearances".
This is, according to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, a classic example of a kangaroo court. In other words, a mockery of jurisprudence.
-
Am I the only one who thinks that the phrase "quasi-legal formalities" is ridiculous, especially where the death penalty is concerned.
I'm taking "quasi-legal" to mean "not really legal" or "sorta legal", and "formalities" to mean "something not really necessary, but done only to maintain appearances".
This is, according to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, a classic example of a kangaroo court. In other words, a mockery of jurisprudence.
It's also an example of "what goes around comes around." I inserted "quasi-legal" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to George Bush's kangaroo military tribunals. Frankly, I think it would be kind of humorous to see him tried in secret by a military tribunal system of his own making and flown to Morocco aboard a secret "torture flight."
But would I really countenance such a sideshow? Well, under certain circumstances, yes.
Did you see the last Star Wars movie? I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, and I didn't think this movie was all that great, but I kind of enjoyed some of the not so subtle references to George Bush and his evil regime.
There was a scene towards the end of the movie where a jedi knight was dueling with the evil emperor. As I recall, the jedi knight gained the upper hand and was arguing with Aniken (sp?) Skywalker, who wanted him to spare the emperor's life and let him stand trial.
The other jedi knight countered that that would be pointless, since the emperor controlled everything - the legislature, the court system, etc.
I thought that was a really chilling scene. It reminded me that George Bush could never get a fair trial because every institution in the U.S. is ultimately run by corporations.
Of course, I'm not going to encourage anyone to revolt against the U.S. government because that might be considered illegal. But if the military did stage a coup and I learned, seven years later, that they spirited George Bush off to some third world nation without the benefit of a trial, I wouldn't shed a tear.
He's obviously guilty of several crimes that each merit the death penalty. And if he gets screwed by the legal system or the military some day, he'll have no one to blame but himself.
-
You're probably right, that an impeachment trial or a war crimes trial or a criminal trial or even a civil trial would be a joke. I'm sure they would. But it is really important that we have them anyway. Because if consistency is not applied, the legal system falls apart. What I mean is, that once you try one person in a kangaroo court, then you can try anyone in a kangaroo court. Once you start down that slippery slope, it's hard to climb out. And not all cases seem as obvious as this one. Any procedure that could be used to put an innocent man in jail or to death must be eliminated from our justice system.
-
You're probably right, that an impeachment trial or a war crimes trial or a criminal trial or even a civil trial would be a joke. I'm sure they would. But it is really important that we have them anyway. Because if consistency is not applied, the legal system falls apart. What I mean is, that once you try one person in a kangaroo court, then you can try anyone in a kangaroo court. Once you start down that slippery slope, it's hard to climb out. And not all cases seem as obvious as this one. Any procedure that could be used to put an innocent man in jail or to death must be eliminated from our justice system.
If there was a revolution, and I wound up installed as Dictator of the United States, I'd probably keep George Bush's military tribunals and torture centers for a few years. I'd use them against corporate America, THEN reform the system after they'd served their purpose.
Then I'd leave office after allowing the people to elect a new president.
All fantasy, of course, but what a fantasy!
-
If there was a revolution, and I wound up installed as Dictator of the United States, I'd probably keep George Bush's military tribunals and torture centers for a few years. I'd use them against corporate America, THEN reform the system after they'd served their purpose.
Then I'd leave office after allowing the people to elect a new president.
All fantasy, of course, but what a fantasy!
According to a book I read recently on Fidel Castro, that was his plan too. Start the revolution, get rid of all the bad guys, and then allow society to return to a somewhat normal state. But as things progressed, Castro found that he was the only one who could be counted on to do what he thought had to be done. For starters, the US was pressuring Cuba to have free elections, and having them would have been doing what the US said - something Castro pointedly avoided. Another president might have bowed to US pressures, and reopened Cuba to exploitation by US corporate interests. The only way to prevent someone else taking the country in the wrong direction is to make sure there is no one else.
What I'm saying is that you can't just reform the system overnight and then expect it to stay that way after you step down. Political and social systems have to be installed over time. Which is why all our bullshit in Iraq is so useless.
-
What I'm saying is that you can't just reform the system overnight and then expect it to stay that way after you step down. Political and social systems have to be installed over time. Which is why all our bullshit in Iraq is so useless.
I know. that's why I inserted the word "fantasy."
To be perfectly honest, I think Americans almost need a dictatorship. They're simply too stupid and apathetic to operate a democracy. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the U.S. is no longer a democracy. (Having run for public office in one of America's chief corporate brothels, I could tell you stories about that.)
That said, Castro himself is kind of a fantasy. I mean, who could imagine a dictator who is actually a better ruler than many democratic leaders? I'm not saying Castro has no faults, but you've got to give credit where credit's due. He's ten times the man George W. Bush is.
I'd love to see Cuba and Venezuela team up on a killer Linux program that blows Microsoft out of the water.
-
Blame our pussy webmaster - this place used to be called FuckMicorsoft.com
Don't call CommonSense a pussy. He did it for the media coverage (only a little bit from Forbes and ZDNet so far).
-
I disagree with death penalty and that that stupid founding fathers constitution bullshit which allows criminals to get guns easily.
Most Europeans think those two are the cause of most of US problems today. Oh, and 90% of the Dutch population believe Bush is a total moron.
-
I agree with the death penalty for repeat offenders and those who can't be rehabilitated. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars to warehouse convicts is pointless when they could be shot in the back of the head and buried in a shallow grave right after the trial for a LOT less than even a week in an average prison would cost. Murderers, rapists, and shoplifters would definitely think twice if they knew that they could be looking at immediate execution instead of years of appeals and eventual release, amirite?
I believe repealing the Second Amendment and taking legalized guns away from law-abiding Americans would be stupid because no amount of new laws could change the fact that criminals already have guns and won't give them up. What would be better for American society: criminals looting and pillaging everywhere because they have guns and nobody else does; or criminals thinking twice about trying to snatch a purse because Granny over there might be ready to blow their brains out?
Also, 90% of the Dutch population are right. The president who urinated on the separation of church and state by clearing the way for funding for "faith-based community initiatives", repealed any and all rights the people have, and started what could have become WWIII to protect the value of his retirement portfolio has to be a moron at the very least.
-
Also, 90% of the Dutch population are right. The president who urinated on the separation of church and state by clearing the way for funding for "faith-based community initiatives", repealed any and all rights the people have, and started what could have become WWIII to protect the value of his retirement portfolio has to be a moron at the very least.
Not only that, but we get to see the worst bloopers by Bush on eight o'clock evening news.
Stuff that you won't see in the US.
-
Not only that, but we get to see the worst bloopers by Bush on eight o'clock evening news.
Stuff that you won't see in the US.
Cool. Sometimes I wish I lived in Europe. Maybe I could find someone I could have an intelligent conversation with - something I never experienced during the sixteen years I worked in public education here in Seattle.
-
All lands have their own morons. The problem is that in US they have the power and are fortifying their positions. Speaking on behalf of the "good" of Sweden I would like to congratulate you, David, on getting at least some taste of what politics means. I myself is a hater of all that is politics. We have had politicians in the "civilized" world for about 10,000 years and these 10,000 years have been the bloodiest of all since the dawn of mankind 3,000,000 years ago. Corporations have been a part of politics all the way throughout these 10,000 years in one shape or another.
My nations prime minister, G
-
We have had politicians in the "civilized" world for about 10,000 years and these 10,000 years have been the bloodiest of all since the dawn of mankind 3,000,000 years ago. Corporations have been a part of politics all the way throughout these 10,000 years in one shape or another.
Corporations were a part of politics 10,000 years ago?
Actually, I regard government as a necessary evil - the only alternative to anarchy - which means politicians are a necessary evil as well.
I hate the word politician, though. It's become synonymous with corruption, deceipt, laziness and on and on.
Since I've run for public office, I guess that makes me a politician, though I prefer to call myself an activist. Yet even that word sounds a little weird; a bit pretentious perhaps.
-
Ha, if I was elected president, I'd trade places with Hugo Chavez. I'd spend my free time chasing beautiful Venezuelan women and let him wrestle with Republicans and Microsoft. :)
:) nice one. I wouldn't wish H. Chavez to rule the US, though. You guys don't deserve the communist s.o.b.
I must say I do not agree with you too much, though. Bill Gates is a very greedy businessman. I do not believe he is truly evil, nor is Bush. But I didn't even have time to read the whole thread yet, so I will keep my silence until I get broadband and more time... september perhaps.
-
Now this thread is politics oriented...
I recommend you all to join http://www.heatedebates.com if you want to talk politics. A member here owns it (Laukev7, with the help of stryker)
-
Thanks, e7ement. ;)
-
Murderers, rapists, and shoplifters would definitely think twice if they knew that they could be looking at immediate execution instead of years of appeals and eventual release, amirite?
No, you ain't rite. Thousands of studies and evidence prove that deterrence is not actually deterrence. I submit to you that Joe Criminal has no thought of any kind what the consequences of his illegal activities are - only the benefits. That's why he's a criminal. I'm not a criminal, and I don't think about the jail time or the death penalty either - I think about the right and the wrong. You think that the death penalty is going to stop crime? In your dreams only. Crime is the necessary product of modern heirarchical society.
I believe repealing the Second Amendment and taking legalized guns away from law-abiding Americans would be stupid because no amount of new laws could change the fact that criminals already have guns and won't give them up. What would be better for American society: criminals looting and pillaging everywhere because they have guns and nobody else does; or criminals thinking twice about trying to snatch a purse because Granny over there might be ready to blow their brains out?
There's also plenty of evidence for this one too. The Netherlands, I believe, has about as many people as Houston, Texas. In Houston, you can buy a shotgun or a handgun at WalMart. In the Netherlands, from what I've heard, a gun is very hard to come by. Are you saying it is coincidence that Houston has a murder at least every day, while the Netherlands is almost murder free? (Refalm will have to back me up on these stats) Anyway, all evidence points to a distinct lack of crime when guns are hard to find. If you haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine", it addresses many of the issues surrounding US gun culture with a unique perspective.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once had:
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their children"
-
I hope you know, I was the one who introduced DavidB to these forums.
-
Now we have another smart member who knows what he is talking about
-
Well, you certainly have a well-articulated viewpoint on this subject, and happen to be very long winded.
For the most part, I agree with your views and accusations on Microsoft and Billy G. Under your 'campaign' you compare the evil and corruptiong between Bill Gates and George Bush. This is what is killing you, because only extreme lefties hate Bush. This places you in a very small (but obnoxiously outspoken) segment of the population, and makes people like me just plain ignore you.
This is where I stopped reading your shit:
Many right-wingers especially like to say, "Innocent until convicted by a judge and jury." Of course, that means George Bush and his entire administration are decent, law-abiding citizens - even though all intelligent people know otherwise.
After that little statement, you have lost my interest. No wonder you can't win an election.
I agree with the fighting-MS stuff, and I'm doing it in my own way; I work in a retail computer-ish store, and everyone who leaves is educated on Firefox and the insecurities of MS software. Many also are given to seeds to later develop into linux users. A few are curious about linux and leave with a good education on the subject.
On my still-in-development web site, I am promoting OSS and linux, and have some anti-MS sentiments (although i'm sure i'll put more in).
My friends run as little MS software as possible, and I have converted many in my area to Linux (anywhere from mentiong it to them and they install it themselves, or doing it myself)
This is all I can do, and I beleive it is a great start. We can not instantly drop everything MS... the world needs to evolve past the tyranny.
I do not want to help you. Beyond a doubt, you are a political extremist set against George W Bush because of your ideological views. I'm going to lump you in with all the other left-wingers I know and assume you are hypocritical too.
You are right in the fact that many Americans are apathetic. Guess what: it's a republic (or representative democracy), and we have freedoms; including, I suppose, the freedom to 'not care.' I'm not sure how you are getting off with the all Americans are morons angle. In fact, I take offense to that. I'm sure a certain % are morons, as can be said with any culture.
Anywho... back to the original topic: you seem to have a firm grasp of the concept but a dillusional view on reality. I'm not sure that a 'direct assult' on MS will be anything but futile, as their cash reserves and assets are immense. You will not get rid of MS; they have too many other markets they are in. I feel that they know of the power of the impending Linux revolution and that is why they have spread (xbox, for example). I do not mind their existence in other markets. I am only concerned with their OS/Application base. That base is steadily losing ground. As far as I am concerned, the mission is succeeding. Consumers, Businesses and Governments alike are converting away from the Win32 core frame. This is good.
-
This is what is killing you, because only extreme lefties hate Bush.
Actually, pretty much everyone hates Bush. It's just the voting machines that don't (partly thanks to Microsoft software, incidentally).
-
No, you ain't rite. Thousands of studies and evidence prove that deterrence is not actually deterrence.
Frankly, I thank those statistics - even if true - are misleading. If George Bush was executed, it would at least prevent George Bush from killing again.
Moreover, just because the percentage of street criminals aren't affected by the death penalty doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't deter public officials. If a couple dozen members of Congress were executed for treason, do you really think their surviving colleagues would not think twice before selling out their country again?
I submit to you that Joe Criminal has no thought of any kind what the consequences of his illegal activities are - only the benefits.
That may be largely because Joe Criminal has no thought of getting caught. Corporate executives and politicians are another matter. They're in the public eye, and if they knew they could and would be held accountable, I'll bet many of them would either clean up their act or find a new job real fast.
-
I hope you know, I was the one who introduced DavidB to these forums.
That's right. Thanks for the tip.
What do you mean by your second comment, though. How did those individuals wreck this forum?
-
For the most part, I agree with your views and accusations on Microsoft and Billy G. Under your 'campaign' you compare the evil and corruptiong between Bill Gates and George Bush. This is what is killing you, because only extreme lefties hate Bush.
Sheez, you're the one who's delusional. Most of the planet hates George W. Bush, the exceptions being extreme right-wingers.
This places you in a very small (but obnoxiously outspoken) segment of the population, and makes people like me just plain ignore you.
Actually, I'm far more outspoken than the average liberal - whom I despise - and not nearly as obnoxious.
This is where I stopped reading your shit:
After that little statement, you have lost my interest. No wonder you can't win an election.
That's the problem with politics. The voting public treats it like a spectator sport. They just sit on their butts and watch the candidates win or lose, later coming forward to present their arrogant analysis of what went wrong.
If you think you can do a better job, show me the way. In the meantime, I'll tell you the real reason I've never been elected: The system is corrupt, far more so than most people realize. The other reason is the the voters are mired in terminal apathy and stupidity.
Take the last presidential election - please. How do you think the average voter prepared for it? I'll tell you how.
They sat on their butts for FOUR YEARS waiting for a chance to vote Bush out of office. In the meantime, they ignored other national, state and local elections. They should have rioted in the streets when corporate America replaced Howard Dean with that god damn traitor, John Kerry. But they didn't. Some didn't even vote in the primary election. They just waited to vote for a handful of candidates in November's general election.
Of course, it was too late by then, because there was nothing to choose from - any decent human beings had long since been ferreted out by corporate operatives. Ask me to tell you about my last televised appearance some day.
This is all I can do, and I beleive it is a great start. We can not instantly drop everything MS...
Never said otherwise. I still have Windows XP.
I do not want to help you. Beyond a doubt, you are a political extremist set against George W Bush because of your ideological views.
I'd wager that 95% of the people on the planet have ideological views that don't mesh with Bush's.
I'm going to lump you in with all the other left-wingers I know and assume you are hypocritical too.
And I'm going to lump you in with all the other morons I've encountered.
I'm not sure how you are getting off with the all Americans are morons angle. In fact, I take offense to that.
Why would that offend you? When I hear other people make the same charge, I say "Right on!" because 1) I know they're speaking the truth, and 2) I know I'm not a moron and therefore am not the target of the attacks. If you feel offended, that suggests that you're an apathetic moron, and my attacks hurt.
I'm not sure that a 'direct assult' on MS will be anything but futile, as their cash reserves and assets are immense.
Blah, blah, blah. You sound just like all the bimbos masquerading as teachers who have told me, "David, it's no use fighting the system!"
The irony is that none of those losers ever TRIED.
If 10,000 people start slinging mud at M$ and Bill Gates both, promoting Firefox and running for office on an anti-Microsoft platform, what's Bill Gates going to do about it?
I feel that they know of the power of the impending Linux revolution...
Gee, do ya think? You sound like a real tactical genius.
I do not mind their existence in other markets. I am only concerned with their OS/Application base.
Now you sound like all the Linux geeks. Well, I DO care about things besides operating systems - and not just "other markets." I care about Bill Gates' exploitation of public schools. I care about his threat to national security and the menace he poses to the Internet. I'm pissed off that Bill Gates wants to saddle us with more taxes, which are obviously going to be funneled into his pockets in one way or another.
That base is steadily losing ground. As far as I am concerned, the mission is succeeding. Consumers, Businesses and Governments alike are converting away from the Win32 core frame. This is good.
But it isn't good enough. It's too little, too slowly - and possibly too late. Believing that Bill Gates' goose has already been cooked is delusional and dangerous.
-
These i posts are gwtting slow long that i get bored after reading the first paragraph
-
I can't believe you even replied to Siplus. Clearly, he is on glue. I normally don't bother to respond to such inanity.
-
I can't believe you even replied to Siplus. Clearly, he is on glue. I normally don't bother to respond to such inanity.
I like to fight.
-
Sometimes, you have to reply to morons to show other people that you have answers to their arguments, however flimsy they are. In the end, it will just make it easier for people to discern the ones who know what they are talking about from the immature reactionaries.
I submit that at this point, anyone who supports the Bush regime does not deserve any respect whatsoever and should be treated like social outcasts. Voting is not only a right, it is also a responsability; people should be held responsible for their votes, and people who support war criminals like Bush despite knowing about his obvious corruption should be punished and treated like accomplices.
It is time to take a zero tolerance stance towards Bush and all his supporters.
-
Sometimes, you have to reply to morons to show other people that you have answers to their arguments, however flimsy they are. In the end, it will just make it easier for people to discern the ones who know what they are talking about from the immature reactionaries.
I submit that at this point, anyone who supports the Bush regime does not deserve any respect whatsoever and should be treated like social outcasts. Voting is not only a right, it is also a responsability; people should be held responsible for their votes, and people who support war criminals like Bush should be punished.
Amen. Voting for George W. Bush was probably the greatest act of mass treason ever committed by U.S. citizens. In contrast, voting for Judas Kerry was an act of desperation; it would have been treason had the alternative not been George Bush.
-
Even though I'm not old enough to vote, if I could have voted in the 2004 election. I would have voted for Bush.
If you think I should be ostacized for that.
[size=42]Fuck You![/size][/b]
-
I suppose people aren't allowed to have their opinions anymore. :rolleyes:
-
Wow. Your demure is impecable. your arrogance and lack of civility is driving away your votes.
Try speaking in a normal tone to supporters and opponents in the political game.
Why do you think Liberals didn't win the '04 election? they were slandering too much, and people are turned off by that. If you can't take a little heat without lashing out at your would-be-voters you should either stop running, or be prepared to not win.
Oh... Expecially that part about calling everyone who voted for Bush a traitor. that'll score you points. At the time of the '04 election I was only 17, and thus couldn't vote. If I could, I would have voted for Bush (big surprise, right?)
People who do well in office disearve a second term to continue. How Clinton got a second term, I will never figure out. (just wanted to throw more fuel to the fire... i'm sure your flames are ready anyway)
-
Even though I'm not old enough to vote, if I could have voted in the 2004 election. I would have voted for Bush.
If you think I should be ostacized for that.
[size=42]Fuck You![/size][/b]
Ostracized? I think you ought to be taken out and executed.
Unfortunately, there are millions of traitors just like you, and they'd probably raise a big stink if we tried to get rid of them.
By the way, fuck you, too.
-
Ahh, My scroll wheel is dead now
-
Wow. Your demure is impecable. your arrogance and lack of civility is driving away your votes.
Why, thank you.
Try speaking in a normal tone to supporters and opponents in the political game.
Try running for office a couple times. Then come back and impress us with your wisdom.
Why do you think Liberals didn't win the '04 election? they were slandering too much, and people are turned off by that.
The Repuglicans "slandered" far more, idiot.
If you can't take a little heat without lashing out at your would-be-voters you should either stop running, or be prepared to not win.
I can take the heat just fine. I just don't duck my head under the sand when people attack me. I hold EVERYONE accountable - including brain-dead voters.
Now please scrape your mashed-potato brains together and learn to use a little logic if you want to continue debating me.
-
they were slandering too much
On the contrary, they lost because they did not work hard enough to denounce the lies of the Bush regime. People did not see a difference between Bush and Kerry, because they did nothing but repackage their rhetoric pushing for more war. Also, there is the fact that there was widespread vote fraud organised by the GOP and their Diebold cronies, with the help of Bush's brother and his money laundering.
-
On the contrary, they lost because they did not work hard enough to denounce the lies of the Bush regime. People did not see a difference between Bush and Kerry, because they did nothing but repackage their rhetoric pushing for more war. Also, there is the fact that there was widespread vote fraud organised by the GOP and their Diebold cronies, with the help of Bush's brother and his money laundering.
And that's just the beginning. I ran for state office that same year, and there was almost incomprehensible corruption even before voters got to the polls. Many counties in Washington State didn't issue Voters Pamphlets for the first time. Some put information about the candidates on their websites, but it was all over the map. One county listed just one candidate in my race. The Secretary of State listed all the candidates, with links to their campaign websites. The link to my site was dead.
I participated in the "Video Voters Guide" - brief televised statements all the candidates are allowed to make. I've never even seen the video, but several people have told me I looked white as a ghost. In fact, someone in the studio told me that just after they filmed me.
I saw one candidate tape her speech just before me, and another went on just after me. Why weren't they white as ghosts?
The Seattle Times LIED about my campaign -twice. The Seattle Weekly didn't even mention my name once. If you don't believe me, visit http://www.seattleweekly.com and type "David Blomstrom" into the search function.
I was only invited to ONE public forum - near the end of the campaign. Which raises another issue - absentee voting.
Why does the establishment go to such great lengths to encourage people to vote absentee, whether they need to or not? I think I know the answer.
Elections are just about the only times that public officials can be held accountable. They're just about the only time the public can have a voice that competes with the media. After all, the public has to know what the candidates are saying, right?
So the establishment tries to restrict this "window" as much as possible. They write very little about the candidates until August or even early September, when many people are preoccupied with unpacking after summer vacation or preparing for a new school year. Even then, they don't give people like me a voice.
But if I found a way to make my voice heard? Suppose, for example, I pulled off a brilliant public relations stunt on September 8. It wouldn't do much good if people have already voted absentee on September 7.
And don't even get me started on the public forums I attended during past campaigns. What a crock.
-
The Seattle Times LIED about my campaign -twice. The Seattle Weekly didn't even mention my name once. If you don't believe me, visit www.seattleweekly.com (http://www.seattleweekly.com/) and type "David Blomstrom" into the search function.
Actually, your name is mentioned in this (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0436/040908_news_endorse.php) article:
She wouldn't have the authority to do so as superintendent
-
Actually, your name is mentioned in this (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0436/040908_news_endorse.php) article:
As well as this (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0337/news-endorsements.php) article (as well as nine (http://www.seattleweekly.com/cgi-bin/search-sw.cgi?q=David+Blomstrom&m=bool&s=DRP&ul=seattleweekly.com&cmd=GO) others):
To be fair though, they did give you a very unfair campaign coverage. It is obvious that they were deliberately trying to obscure you.
That's odd; when I checked, there were 0 entries for David Blomstrom in 2004. I wonder if they've changed their search function somehow.
But their coverage was still disgusting. "Former teacher David Blomstrom is also running" is ALL they wrote about me in one article. The first link you posted mentioned a candidate named Arthur Hu. In fact, he wasn't even a candidate; he ran in 2000!
There was a BIG article about the Supt. of Public Instruction campaign - I'm pretty sure it was the most extensive article the Seattle Weekly published - that didn't even mention my name. In fact, I think it just mentioned their two favorite (and obviously corrupt) candidates.
It's interesting that their tactics have changed, though. During my first two campaigns, they ridiculed me pretty severely. In return, I began exposing the Seattle Weekly's media whores on my website. During the last two elections, they pretty much ignored me.
Imagine making Microsoft a campaign issue in Bill Gates' own backyard AND calling for the death penalty for the president in a city that could serve as the capital of the IMPEACH BUSH movement and not even seeing a word about either issue in the Seattle Weekly, which pretends to be an alternative newspaper.
-
Acutally, those nine links you posted represent EVERYTHING written about me over the course of FOUR campaigns for public office. I believe the first link is the only one associated with my 2004 campaign.
That's an average of 2.25 "mentions" (or insults) per campaign.
ON EDIT... Actually, there are a total of 11 "mentions," 3 of which were written before I first ran for office.
-
On the contrary, they lost because they did not work hard enough to denounce the lies of the Bush regime. People did not see a difference between Bush and Kerry, because they did nothing but repackage their rhetoric pushing for more war. Also, there is the fact that there was widespread vote fraud organised by the GOP and their Diebold cronies, with the help of Bush's brother and his money laundering.
Wow. I say the EXACT same thing about libs
-
Wow. I say the EXACT same thing about libs
Well, duh...I think that's who he's talking about. Or are you referring to the second part of the post? Are you suggesting that the libs were aided by Diebold and George Bush's corrupt relatives?
-
Even though I'm not old enough to vote, if I could have voted in the 2004 election. I would have voted for Bush.
Being able to properly punctuate a simple sentence should be a prerequisite for voting.
-
Being able to properly punctuate a simple sentence should be a prerequisite for voting.
Amen to that.
Wow. I say the EXACT same thing about libs
-
[OFFTOPIC] My scroll wheel is melting now[/OFFTOPIC]
-
Being able to properly punctuate a simple sentence should be a prerequisite for voting.
Except that literacy laws were long used in the United States to prevent blacks from voting. I'd have to be fairly certain that educational systems were functioning properly and fairly before I would agree to another literacy law.
-
Except that literacy laws were long used in the United States to prevent blacks from voting. I'd have to be fairly certain that educational systems were functioning properly and fairly before I would agree to another literacy law.
True. On the other hand, literacy laws would keep a lot of Republicans home on voting day.
-
True. On the other hand, literacy laws would keep a lot of Republicans home on voting day.
Somehow I doubt that. Typically speaking, Liberals tend to be younger in age; however, Conservatives tend to be older. Anyone who thinks younger people are more educated than older people (in general) is mistaken. I know from first hand experience that the average person my age has not developed lingusitic skills beyond that of the majority of you.
Since this is an online forum, and I care very little about writing properly, I do not care about being grammatically correct.
This is not published (unless someone is printing this out.. but that would be pointless). I do not care what half a dozen ideological extremists think about my abilities (My academics are my business). Pointing out grammatical errors online is very annoying, and few people care. You are no better than the trolls on slashdot.
-
Pointing out grammatical errors online is very annoying, and few people care. You are no better than the trolls on slashdot.
It depends on the nature and extent of the grammatical errors. We all make typos, and I've never met anyone who could spell every world and had mastered every grammatical rule.
However, extremely poor grammar or spelling is sometimes evidence of ignorance. One of my favorite examples is the right-winger who recently labeled me a "creaton" on a political forum. It took me a while to figure out he meant cretin.
-
You want to kill everyone who voted for Bush?
That's called genocide.
Sieg Hail, fucker:
(http://www.hitler.org/images/hitler.in.car.jpg)
-
You want to kill everyone who voted for Bush?
That's called genocide.
Sieg Hail, fucker:
(http://www.hitler.org/images/hitler.in.car.jpg)
It's just a fantasy. And I wouldn't call it genocide; I'd call it Darwin's law - ridding the world of some really stupid people.
-
You want to kill everyone who voted for Bush?
That's called genocide.
Sieg Hail, fucker:
(http://www.hitler.org/images/hitler.in.car.jpg)
Godwin's Law has been invoked. This thread is starting to look like it belongs in the moron zone.
-
I am sorry I compared you to hitler.
You're more in line with Joseph Stalin:
(http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter15/images/stalin.jpg)
-
Ah, but Stalin went beyond fantasizing. And he didn't target right-wing religious kooks; he killed more or less indiscriminately.
-
Ah, but Stalin went beyond fantasizing. And he didn't target right-wing religious kooks; he killed more or less indiscriminately.
It is your *opinion* that conservatives are unintelligent. How do you know I do not have a greater mental capacity for the sciences than you do? How do you know if you have superior linguistic skills than me? I don't know if you do or not, as I have nothing to compare myself to you.
You started out as a very articulate individual with a cause, now you are just a troll calling for mass murder for no particular reason.
If any mods are active, I beleive this thread should be inspected and taken care of
-
If any mods are active, I beleive this thread should be inspected and taken care of
Fat chance pal. I'm the mod here, and unlike Bushists like you, I have respect for freedom of speech.
-
you have a strange understanding of what 'freedom of speech' means.
-
Even though I'm not old enough to vote, if I could have voted in the 2004 election. I would have voted for Bush.
That's not what you said right before the election. You were supporting Michael Badnarik.
Too bad the search on this forum sucks, else I'd find the thread.
-
It is your *opinion* that conservatives are unintelligent. How do you know I do not have a greater mental capacity for the sciences than you do? How do you know if you have superior linguistic skills than me? I don't know if you do or not, as I have nothing to compare myself to you.
I'm not comparing the two of us; I'm commenting on right-wingers, who, as a group seem to be incomprehensibly stupid. Of course, Seattle liberals may be just as stupid in their own way, so maybe my comments are meaningless after all.
You started out as a very articulate individual with a cause, now you are just a troll calling for mass murder for no particular reason.
Oh, for crying out loud, I cited a very good reason for mass murder - they voted for Bush! And the mods had better jump on this thread fast, because I've already got my weapons of mass destruction primed!
-
Holy crap this is wrong...
David, you are a little too extreme. As you correctly said, Kerry is definitely not much better than Bush, if at all. Since you only have two options, you can barely blame people for choosing wrong.
If you really honestly think that voting Bush is a just cause for execution, you are not only much worse than him, you are a very dangerous mentally insane individual. Thank god you weren't elected. That has saved the lives of quite a few Seattle rightists.