Election Day Law Ignores First Amendment

25 10 2008

Imagine waiting for three hours in line on Election Day to cast your ballot, but you’re turned away at the last second. Right before the voting booth, you’re turned away because you’re not wearing the right kind of sneakers.

You should have left your Nike Obama Air Force Ones at home.

Lawyers and campaigners have started bringing up a little known law that completely undermines the First Amendment on Election Day. They’ve started bringing it up, because it can prevent you from voting after you’ve waited for hours in line. Instead of being able to vote, you may be forced to go home and change.

This law prevents against the crime of “passive electioneering,” which is when voters wear political paraphernalia to the voting booth.

If you’re planning on voting, don’t wear anything that shows any kind of support for anything – you’re not allowed. Even though you’re going there to vote for who you think should run the country, for some reason, the people running the election don’t want you to show it.

Some republicans have argued that the outfits could get too outlandish.

Imagine people wearing musical hats to the voting booths. Wouldn’t that be complete and utter chaos? Blood would most likely run in the streets! If people could wear Obama and McCain pins to the election, they would no doubt take them off and start piecing each other relentlessly.

If you’re heading to the election booth, you’ve most likely made your mind about why you’re there. Someone wearing a McCain hat or Obama shirt isn’t going  to sway your vote or drive you to violence, so why waste taxpayer dollars creating laws on it?

Not only does it lack sense, but it has also damaged democracy and what we are supposed to believe in as a country. If I want to where an Obama Halloween costume when I go vote, I should be allowed. Everyone should just be happy that I’m voting, and stop being so picky.

Everyone is always telling everyone else to go out and vote, but if I show support when I go out and do it, then you won’t let me vote?

From what I can tell, our government only wants half a democracy. They want about 50 percent of us to vote, and the other half to stay home. For some reason, when we get too pumped up about an election, they have to make sure to bring us back down.

Please vote, but don’t be too excited about it, or else they might not let you.

Hopefully we’ll see a lot of publicity on this subject in the next week and a half.

And hopefully someone can explain to me how this isn’t a blatant violation of my First Amendment rights.

Advertisements




5 political tactics used by liars

24 10 2008

When a politician starts speaking, you should already have your guard up.

Get ready to become a filter, because there’s a big difference between what a politician says, and what he or she actually means.

Terms you can tune out to. They dont mean much when politicians say them anymore.

Terms you can tune out to. They don't mean much when politicians say them anymore.

Fortunately, a lot of politicians have put themselves in a lot of compromising situations. This gives us a chance to observe those critical moments right before they actually admit to their misdeeds. It is in these moments where we can see the mind of a professional liar break down.

When one of the world’s greatest liars starts going down, we get to see what desperate attempts they make to try to stay afloat. Those desperate acts are the ones that show us the inner workings of mass manipulation And when we see those moments, we can remember and point out when others use them.

The following are five terms that politicians have used when they’re going down in flames. Check them out, and see if you can tell when politicians try to use the same tactics in the future.

________

5) Redirection and Deferment:

We’ll start out with a popular example from about a decade ago. President Bill Clinton’s position was compromised after he put intern Monica Lewinsky in a compromising position. It doesn’t matter what your personal opinion is about the situation, the fact that Clinton lied isn’t up for debate.

Clinton said he didn’t have any kind of sexual relations with the intern, but later admitted he did. This gives us an opportunity to see Slick Willy’s tactics of untruth.

This video takes place after Clinton cracked under the pressure, but there are still some key strategies we can get out of it.

Notice how he immediately tries to redirect the conversation at the beginning. That’s a very successful way politicians get out of what they don’t want to talk about. It didn’t work in this instance, but it has in many others.

His answers also give us some information. If a politician is being asked a serious question, and can’t give a “yes” or “no” answer, there’s a problem. If someone’s making sure not to answer a question, it’s probably because they don’t like the answer they would give.

________

4) Unprovoked confirmation that a statement is true:

Recently, John McCain has been put in a situation that has forced him to defend “robocalls” he’s decided to make. These are automated calls into people’s homes that campaign for McCain.

A video of him defending these calls gives us some insight into how politicians will sometimes start defending an accusation that was never made.

McCain starts defending how true the robocall is, when that was never an issue. By doing this, he not only redirects whatever accusation was going to be made, but he also gets off without having to lie about anything (even though what he’s doing is suspect).

________

3) Make it personal:

Richard Nixon’s most popular phrase of all time is probably, “I am not a crook.” The problem was, that statement wasn’t exactly true. He was involved in the Watergate scandal.

While his ship was sinking, he was able to give us a statement, which we can now look back on and see as a not-always-effective tactic to cool down the heat.

He makes the accusations more personal by using “I am” and “I’ve earned” statements. These are an effective way to confront everyone who is thinking bad thoughts about you. It makes people think they are attacking you, because they don’t like you.

If they think you did something wrong, call them out on it, and they’ll usually back down. That is, unless they have a lot of recorded evidence to back themselves up.

________

2) Realistic, but not necessarily real, links:

One of the best ways to get Americans to fight who you want them to fight, is to link your enemies to people Americans already don’t like.

Dick Cheney gave a good example of this when he was trying to link Iraq to the attacks on Sept. 11. Cheney made statements suggesting that Iraq was somehow involved, and not only was this later proved wrong, but Cheney also backtracked on the statements himself.

Even though he backtracked, this was still a factor in getting support for the Iraq War from the public. This tactic can be very dangerous, because it can lead to a constant war where we keep attacking people who our leaders tell us are linked to people we’ve already fought.

The 7-step Kevin Bacon rule proves that this can eventually kill us all, since we’re all linked in someway. Thank you, Kevin Bacon, for proving the eventual apocalypse.

________

1) Fear:

Fear is what politicians use most to control us. People will do almost anything to not feel fear, and that’s why politicians keep feeding it to us. It’s the most effective way to get what they want.

This last one is a little bit of a compilation of politicians, but they’re all from basically the same administration.

We need to realize that there’s always going to be something to be afraid of, but it’s not a reason to allow others to control what we do.

We have to keep our guard up when politicians are talking about scary stuff, because it usually means they want something. It’s the equivalent to a child being really nice to their parents all of the sudden.

They’re only doing it to get what they want, and they’ll do it again when they need something else.

-William Kammer





Top 5 Sarah Palin Mistakes, So Far

22 10 2008

The following are obvious mistakes Sarah Palin has already made on her road to taking the second highest office in the country.

There are obviously many more mistakes, and if you feel there is a specific incidence that isn’t on the list and should be, then leave a comment. I realize everyone isn’t going to have to same opinion of how terrible each her mistakes is compared to the others.

Let’s get the ball rolling:

5)

One of Palin’s more recently discovered mistakes involved Alaska paying for her kids to go to New York, among other places. Palin charged over $20,000 to the state in order for her kids to go with her to events they weren’t invited to. One expense was a 5-day trip to New York for Palin and her daughter, Bristol, and another expense to the state allowed her children to watch their dad, Todd, perform in a snowmobile race.

The argument is that Palin’s daughters were invited to these events, but some organizers disagree. Palin tries to brush it off as not a big deal, but if it wasn’t a big deal, then why did she alter records?

“…after Alaska reporters asked for the records, Palin ordered changes to previously filed expense reports for her daughters’ travel.” – An AP Investigation.

4)

The series of interviews Katie Couric did with Palin really showed her lack of knowledge on issues important to the office she wants to hold. Couric was relentless in asking specific questions, and wanting specific answers. Unfortunately, Palin couldn’t give Couric specific answers to easy questions. For example, When asked what kind of magazines Palin read, sheresponded by saying, “all of them.”

She also failed to answer other questions Couric threw at her, like specific questions about the economy.

This interview was just a terrible choice for Palin all-around. At the beginning of her vice presidential nomination, she already solidified herself as the dumb manipulative kind of woman, which some women don’t want representing them.

3)

Palin received millions of dollars for Alaska in order to complete a terrible bridge idea. Not only did she receive almost $400 million for the bridge, but after the rest on the country realized that building a $400 million bridge for a town with a population of 7,500 was a bad idea, she kept the money.

She supported the idea of a bridge until the general public thought it was a bad idea, then she kept the money and said she was going to “redirect the funds.” Now she has the nerve to say the bridge was a terrible idea that she fought against it since the beginning.

There is something very scary about a person who can completely turn around anything they said, and say it with a straight face. That means she can lie to us really well.

2)

The Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) is very connected with Palin and her family, and they don’t care much for the U.S.

The AIP wants Alaska to succeed from the U.S. and become their own state. Big players in the party like Mark Chryson say they wouldn’t use force to succeed, but he admits to having lots of guns, as I mentioned in an earlier post (Obama and Ayers compared to Palin and Chryson).

Palin isn’t a member of this organization, but her husband is. And although she has never officially been a member, she has worked with them and supported them publicly on television.

1)

The worst mistake Palin made was accepting the nomination for vice president. This isn’t necessarily the worst mistake she made for herself, but it is the worst mistake she has made she her gender and her species.

Unlike Hilary Clinton, Palin isn’t a good role model for anyone. She isn’t someone who worked her way to the top and fought for everything she’s got. She had a vice presidential nomination fall in her lap after Clinton didn’t get on the democratic ticket. Palin just happened to be the hottest female at McCain’s disposal.

If Clinton was on the democratic ticket, there is no way McCain would have picked Palin. A potential president shouldn’t be picking his vice president based on who his opponent picks.

It should be the best person for the job.