Discussion:
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2017-04-28 16:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's changing.
The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017

These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)

How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell? News organizations old and
new, large and small, print and online, broadcast and cable assigned
phalanxes of reporters armed with the most sophisticated polling data and
analysis to cover the presidential campaign. The overwhelming assumption was
that the race was Hillary Clinton's for the taking, and the real question
wasn't how sweeping her November victory would be, but how far out to sea
her wave would send political parvenu Trump. Today, it's Trump who occupies
the White House and Clinton who's drifting out to sea-an outcome that
arrived not just as an embarrassment for the press but as an indictment. In
some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn't
get the nation it purportedly covers.

What went so wrong? What's still wrong? To some conservatives, Trump's
surprise win on November 8 simply bore out what they had suspected, that the
Democrat-infested press was knowingly in the tank for Clinton all along. The
media, in this view, was guilty not just of confirmation bias but of
complicity. But the knowing-bias charge never added up: No news organization
ignored the Clinton emails story, and everybody feasted on the damaging John
Podesta email cache that WikiLeaks served up buffet-style. Practically
speaking, you're not pushing Clinton to victory if you're pantsing her and
her party to voters almost daily.

The answer to the press' myopia lies elsewhere, and nobody has produced a
better argument for how the national media missed the Trump story than
FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver, who pointed out that the ideological
clustering in top newsrooms led to groupthink. "As of 2013, only 7 percent
of [journalists] identified as Republicans," Silver wrote in March, chiding
the press for its political homogeneity. Just after the election,
presidential strategist Steve Bannon savaged the press on the same point but
with a heartier vocabulary. "The media bubble is the ultimate symbol of what's
wrong with this country," Bannon said. "It's just a circle of people talking
to themselves who have no fucking idea what's going on."
About the Illustration

The map at the top of this piece shows how concentrated media jobs have
become in the nation's most Democratic-leaning counties. Counties that voted
for Donald Trump in 2016 are in red, and Hillary Clinton counties are in
blue, with darker colors signifying higher vote margins. The bubbles
represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and internet publishing
jobs. Not only do most of the bubbles fall in blue counties, chiefly on the
coasts, but an outright majority of the jobs are in the deepest-blue
counties, where Clinton won by 30 points or more.

Illustration by DataPoint; data reporting by Tucker Doherty

But journalistic groupthink is a symptom, not a cause. And when it comes to
the cause, there's another, blunter way to think about the question than
screaming "bias" and "conspiracy," or counting D's and R's. That's to ask a
simple question about the map. Where do journalists work, and how much has
that changed in recent years? To determine this, my colleague Tucker Doherty
excavated labor statistics and cross-referenced them against voting patterns
and Census data to figure out just what the American media landscape looks
like, and how much it has changed.

The results read like a revelation. The national media really does work in a
bubble, something that wasn't true as recently as 2008. And the bubble is
growing more extreme. Concentrated heavily along the coasts, the bubble is
both geographic and political. If you're a working journalist, odds aren't
just that you work in a pro-Clinton county-odds are that you reside in one
of the nation's most pro-Clinton counties. And you've got company: If you're
a typical reader of Politico, chances are you're a citizen of bubbleville,
too.

The "media bubble" trope might feel overused by critics of journalism who
want to sneer at reporters who live in Brooklyn or California and don't get
the "real America" of southern Ohio or rural Kansas. But these numbers
suggest it's no exaggeration: Not only is the bubble real, but it's more
extreme than you might realize. And it's driven by deep industry trends.

The national media really does work in a bubble, something that wasn't true
as recently as 2008. And the bubble is growing more extreme.

Parts of the media have always had their own bubbles. The national magazine
industry has been concentrated in New York for generations, and the copy
produced reflects an Eastern sensibility. Radio and TV networks based in New
York and Los Angeles likewise have shared that dominant sensibility. But
they were more than balanced out by the number of newspaper jobs in big
cities, midsized cities and smaller towns throughout the country, spreading
journalists everywhere.

No longer. The newspaper industry has jettisoned hundreds of thousands of
jobs, due to falling advertising revenues. Dailies have shrunk sections,
pages and features; some have retreated from daily publication; hundreds
have closed. Daily and weekly newspaper publishers employed about 455,000
reporters, clerks, salespeople, designers and the like in 1990, according to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By January 2017, that workforce had more
than halved to 173,900. Those losses were felt in almost every region of the
country.
Graph1-Shafer-ByTuckerDoherty-crop.jpg

Graphic by Tucker Doherty

As newspapers have dwindled, internet publishers have added employees at a
bracing clip. According to BLS data, a startling boom in "internet
publishing and broadcasting" jobs has taken place. Since January 2008,
internet publishing has grown from 77,900 jobs to 206,700 in January 2017.
In late 2015, during Barack Obama's second term, these two trend lines-jobs
in newspapers, and jobs in internet publishing-finally crossed. For the
first time, the number of workers in internet publishing exceeded the number
of their newspaper brethren. Internet publishers are now adding workers at
nearly twice the rate newspaper publishers are losing them.

This isn't just a shift in medium. It's also a shift in sociopolitics, and a
radical one. Where newspaper jobs are spread nationwide, internet jobs are
not: Today, 73 percent of all internet publishing jobs are concentrated in
either the Boston-New York-Washington-Richmond corridor or the West Coast
crescent that runs from Seattle to San Diego and on to Phoenix. The
Chicagoland area, a traditional media center, captures 5 percent of the
jobs, with a paltry 22 percent going to the rest of the country. And almost
all the real growth of internet publishing is happening outside the
heartland, in just a few urban counties, all places that voted for Clinton.
So when your conservative friends use "media" as a synonym for "coastal" and
"liberal," they're not far off the mark.

What caused the majority of national media jobs to concentrate on the
coasts? An alignment of the stars? A flocking of like-minded humans? The
answer is far more structural, and far more difficult to alter: It was
economics that done the deed.

The magic of the internet was going to shake up the old certainties of the
job market, prevent the coagulation of jobs in the big metro areas, or so
the Web utopians promised us in the mid-1990s. The technology would free
internet employees to work from wherever they could find a broadband
connection. That remains true in theory, with thousands of Web developers,
writers and producers working remotely from lesser metropolises.
WhiteHousePress-Lede-ByMattChase.jpg

1600 Penn
Trump's Fake War on the Fake News

By Ben Schreckinger and Hadas Gold

But economists know something the internet evangelists have ignored: All
else being equal, specialized industries like to cluster. Car companies didn't
arise in remote regions that needed cars-they arose in Detroit, which
already had heavy industry, was near natural resources, boasted a skilled
workforce and was home to a network of suppliers that could help car
companies thrive. As industries grow, they bud and create spinoffs, the best
example being the way Silicon Valley blossomed from just a handful of
pioneering electronics firms in the 1960s. Seattle's rise as a tech
powerhouse was seeded by Microsoft, which moved to the area in 1979 and
helped create the ecosystem that gave rise to companies like Amazon.

As Enrico Moretti, a University of California, Berkeley, economist who has
studied the geography of job creation, points out, the tech entrepreneurs
who drive internet publishing could locate their companies in low-rent,
low-cost-of-living places like Cleveland, but they don't. They need the most
talented workers, who tend to move to the clusters, where demand drives
wages higher. And it's the clusters that host all the subsidiary industries
a tech start-up craves-lawyers specializing in intellectual property and
incorporation; hardware and software vendors; angel investors; and so on.

The old newspaper business model almost prevented this kind of clustering.
Except for the national broadsheets-the New York Times, the Wall Street
Journal, USA Today and increasingly the Washington Post-newspapers must
locate, cheek by jowl, next to their customers, the people who consume local
news, and whom local advertisers need to reach. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader
is stuck in South Dakota just as the owners of hydroelectric plants in the
Rockies are stuck where they are. As much as they might want to move their
dams to coastal markets where they could charge more for electricity, fate
has fixed them geographically. Economists call these "non-tradable
goods"-goods that must be consumed in the same community in which they're
made. The business of a newspaper can't really be separated from the place
where it's published. It is, or was, driven by ads for things that don't
travel, like real estate, jobs, home decor and cars. And as that advertising
has gotten harder and harder to come by, local newsrooms have become thinner
and thinner.

The online media, liberated from printing presses and local ad bases, has
been free to form clusters, piggyback-style, on the industries and
government that it covers. New York is home to most business coverage
because of the size of the business and banking community there. Likewise,
national political reporting has concentrated in Washington and grown apace
with the federal government. Entertainment and cultural reporting has
bunched in New York and Los Angeles, where those businesses are strong.

The result? If you look at the maps on the next page, you don't need to be a
Republican campaign strategist to grasp just how far the "media bubble" has
drifted from the average American experience. Newspaper jobs are far more
evenly scattered across the country, including the deep red parts. But as
those vanish, it's internet jobs that are driving whatever growth there is
in media-and those fall almost entirely in places that are dense, blue and
right in the bubble.

***

As the votes streamed in on election night, evidence that the country had
further cleaved into two Americas became palpable. With few exceptions,
Clinton ran the table in urban America, while Trump ran it in the
ruralities. And as you might suspect, Clinton dominated where internet
publishing jobs abound. Nearly 90 percent of all internet publishing
employees work in a county where Clinton won, and 75 percent of them work in
a county that she won by more than 30 percentage points. When you add in the
shrinking number of newspaper jobs, 72 percent of all internet publishing or
newspaper employees work in a county that Clinton won. By this measure, of
course, Clinton was the national media's candidate.
Mag - Trump Eliana Johnson Trump animation

Fourth Estate
How Trump Blew Up the Conservative Media

By Eliana Johnson

Resist-if you can-the conservative reflex to absorb this data and conclude
that the media deliberately twists the news in favor of Democrats. Instead,
take it the way a social scientist would take it: The people who report,
edit, produce and publish news can't help being affected-deeply affected-by
the environment around them. Former New York Times public editor Daniel
Okrent got at this when he analyzed the decidedly liberal bent of his
newspaper's staff in a 2004 column that rewards rereading today. The "heart,
mind, and habits" of the Times, he wrote, cannot be divorced from the ethos
of the cosmopolitan city where it is produced. On such subjects as abortion,
gay rights, gun control and environmental regulation, the Times' news
reporting is a pretty good reflection of its region's dominant
predisposition. And yes, a Times-ian ethos flourishes in all of internet
publishing's major cities-Los Angeles, New York, Boston, Seattle, San
Francisco and Washington. The Times thinks of itself as a centrist national
newspaper, but it's more accurate to say its politics are perfectly centered
on the slices of America that look and think the most like Manhattan.

Something akin to the Times ethos thrives in most major national newsrooms
found on the Clinton coasts-CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed,
Politico and the rest. Their reporters, an admirable lot, can parachute into
Appalachia or the rural Midwest on a monthly basis and still not shake their
provincial sensibilities: Reporters tote their bubbles with them.
shafer_maps_1.png

In a sense, the media bubble reflects an established truth about America:
The places with money get served better than the places without. People in
big media cities aren't just more liberal, they're also richer: Half of all
newspaper and internet publishing employees work in counties where the
median household income is greater than $61,000-$7,000 more than the
national median. Commercial media tend to cluster where most of the GDP is
created, and that's the coasts. Perhaps this is what Bannon is hollering
about when he denounces the "corporatist, global media," as he did in
February at the Conservative Political Action Conference. If current trends
continue-and it's safe to predict they will-national media will continue to
expand and concentrate on the coasts, while local and regional media
contract.

Can media myopia be cured? Unlike other industries, the national media has a
directive beyond just staying in business: Many newsrooms really do feel a
commitment to reflecting America fairly. Sometimes, correcting for liberal
bias can be smart business as well. For instance, by rightly guessing that
there was a big national broadcast audience that didn't see their worldviews
represented in the mainstream networks, the Fox News Channel came to
dominate cable TV ratings. Adopting Fox's anti-mainstream media message to
his political needs, Trump ended up running on a Foxesque platform, making a
vote for him into a vote against the elite media-his trash talk was always
directed at the national press, not the local. Similarly, Breitbart has seen
huge success sticking it to liberals, implicitly taking the side of the
"real America" against the coastal bubbles. Breitbart now attracts more than
15 million visitors a month, according to comScore, which isn't far behind
more established outlets like the Hill's 24 million and Politico's 25
million.

Everyone acknowledges that Trump's election really was a bad miss, and
if the media doesn't figure it out, it will miss the next one, too.


But is this really America, either? It's worth mentioning that Fox and
Breitbart-and indeed most of the big conservative media players-also happen
to be located in the same bubble. Like the "MSM" they rail against, they're
a product of New York, Washington and Los Angeles. It's an argument against
the bubble, being waged almost entirely by people who work inside it.

Is America trapped? Certainly, the media seems to be. It's hard to imagine
an industry willingly accommodating the places with less money, fewer people
and less expertise, especially if they sense that niche has already been
filled to capacity by Fox. Yet everyone acknowledges that Trump's election
really was a bad miss, and if the media doesn't figure it out, it will miss
the next one, too.

Journalism tends toward the autobiographical unless reporters and editors
make a determined effort to separate themselves from the frame of their own
experiences. The best medicine for journalistic myopia isn't reeducation
camps or a splurge of diversity hiring, though tiny doses of those two
remedies wouldn't hurt. Journalists respond to their failings best when
their vanity is punctured with proof that they blew a story that was right
in front of them. If the burning humiliation of missing the biggest
political story in a generation won't change newsrooms, nothing will. More
than anything, journalists hate getting beat.

Jack Shafer is senior media writer at Politico.
Tucker Doherty is a data reporter for Politico Pro.

A note on the methodology: These maps are based on U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics employment data collected through state unemployment insurance
programs. They're limited by the way BLS defines media and publishing jobs,
which in some cases may count all employees, including press operators and
sales staff. For privacy reasons, BLS doesn't give exact numbers for the
smallest counties by population, so we generated estimates for those
counties using Census data. The BLS data also aren't perfect at sifting out
which employees at big internet firms like Facebook count as "publishing" or
"media," and which don't. BLS doesn't release employment data by individual
company, so it's hard to drill deeper into the data for accuracy. Even so,
this data gives the most reliable general view of how employment in media
has evolved and shifted.



How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell? News organizations old and
new, large and small, print and online, broadcast and cable assigned
phalanxes of reporters armed with the most sophisticated polling data and
analysis to cover the presidential campaign. The overwhelming assumption was
that the race was Hillary Clinton's for the taking, and the real question
wasn't how sweeping her November victory would be, but how far out to sea
her wave would send political parvenu Trump. Today, it's Trump who occupies
the White House and Clinton who's drifting out to sea-an outcome that
arrived not just as an embarrassment for the press but as an indictment. In
some profound way, the election made clear, the national media just doesn't
get the nation it purportedly covers.

What went so wrong? What's still wrong? To some conservatives, Trump's
surprise win on November 8 simply bore out what they had suspected, that the
Democrat-infested press was knowingly in the tank for Clinton all along. The
media, in this view, was guilty not just of confirmation bias but of
complicity. But the knowing-bias charge never added up: No news organization
ignored the Clinton emails story, and everybody feasted on the damaging John
Podesta email cache that WikiLeaks served up buffet-style. Practically
speaking, you're not pushing Clinton to victory if you're pantsing her and
her party to voters almost daily.

The answer to the press' myopia lies elsewhere, and nobody has produced a
bet


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048



http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048
Baxter
2017-04-29 13:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
a425couple
2017-04-29 14:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
So what?

The main media was so out of touch with much of the country,
they proclaimed the election was a slam-dunk.
They were wrong about that, and many other things.

These are the 'experts' that are supposed to be informing you.

Even very liberal Chuck Todd admits the media bias and failure
to correctly inform.
"NBC's Chuck Todd: Media knew how 'hated' Hillary was in heartland
and we 'underplayed' it
'We didn't tell the stories of all Americans,' 'Meet the Press' host admits
By Ken Shepherd - The Washington Times - Friday, January 27, 2017
NBC's Chuck Todd confessed that he and others in the mainstream news media
played down just how despised Hillary Clinton was in the heartland due to
the fear of appearing "sexist."
What's more, he admitted, the mainstream media failed to "tell the stories
of all Americans."
"Where I think political correctness got in the way of what we all knew as
reporters and didn't fully deliver was how hated the Clintons were in the
heartland," the "Meet the Press" host admitted Thursday to former Bush White
House press secretary Ari Fleischer in a interview for the "1947" podcast.
"I think we underplayed it a little bit out of political correctness fears,"
Mr. Todd said. "No member of the press corps wants to look like they're
singling out a group and making a group feel bad, right, whatever that
[group] is.
"If we sort of were straight-up honest and blunt about hey do we understand
the level of hatred that's out there and you know, all the Hillary for
Prison signs that are out there, we certainly would have at least made the
viewer know, hey, you know, she's not well-liked in some places in this
country in ways that's times 10 when it comes to Trump," he said.
"I think you've put your finger on the point I was making earlier about the
self selection of reporters who go into journalism," Mr. Fleischer replied.
"And, because I do submit they're largely from the same liberal caste, they
see things through the same type of ideological lens, they're so much more
susceptible to that damning political correctness that blinds them. And they
don't see what you just said."
Mr. Todd rejected the premise that NBC News or the media in general is
driven to "undermine" Donald Trump's presidency, but admitted there was a
"coastal" bias in story selection during the 2016 presidential campaign that
poorly served a national audience.
"What do I think we did wrong in this election? The biggest thing is we didn't
tell the stories of all Americans," Mr. Todd said. "We told the stories of
coastal Americans. And ultimately, that's like the larger trust issue."
"We were more likely to do a story about the Dreamer that might get deported
with new policies than we were about the 19-year-old opioid addict who feels
hopeless in Rolla, Missouri. And, I'm not, I don't pick on Rolla, Missouri,
it's, my point is that we just, we did not equally tell those stories very
well, right, and, we were not, that is an out-of-touch issue."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/27/nbcs-chuck-todd-media-knew-how-hated-hillary-was-h/

--------------------------
As to the last match:
"Only 28% of Americans think Dems are in touch with their concerns.
67% don't. Brutal poll for Dems
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/04/23/National-Politics/Polling/release_466.xml?tid=a_inl
7:12 AM - 23 Apr 2017 Jonathan Karl
According to the ABC/WP poll, among 2016 voters, @realDonaldTrump
would beat Hillary Clinton in a rematch -- in the popular vote, no less.
6:32 AM - 23 Apr 2017 · The White House"
Baxter
2017-04-29 17:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
So what?
The main media was so out of touch with much of the country,
they proclaimed the election was a slam-dunk.
They were wrong about that, and many other things.
There was no Trump "swell". Hillary won the actual vote. That Trump is
president is because this is not an actual Democracy. He "won" by
manipulating the system (by him, by the GOP and by the Russians) - not by
getting the most votes. The media accrately forecasted the popular vote
and the actual will of the People.

Trump's and your efforts to portray him as a popular President and as
having the support of the majority of the People are complete lies. But
then, the right-wing/conservatives don't know how to tell the truth.
a425couple
2017-04-29 18:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
So what?
The main media was so out of touch with much of the country,
they proclaimed the election was a slam-dunk.
They were wrong about that, and many other things.
There was no Trump "swell". Hillary won the actual vote. That Trump is
president is because this is not an actual Democracy. He "won" by
manipulating the system
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College?
If Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when
they were in power?

Problem was, Hillary is a currupt and lying politician, and keeps
losing. Why did she put out hit pieces during the primaries on Rubio,
and then on Larry Johnson?
Bill Shatzer
2017-04-30 02:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College? If
Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when they were in
power?
It takes more than just "being in power".

To change the presidential election process requires the concurrence for
two thirds of both houses of congress plus the legislatures of three
quarters of the states

peace and justice
a425couple
2017-04-30 03:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College? If
Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when they were in
power?
It takes more than just "being in power".
To change the presidential election process requires the concurrence for
two thirds of both houses of congress plus the legislatures of three
quarters of the states
I know that.

And the Democratic Party has never even been concerned enough
about the Electoral College to begin trying to change it.
Until now, when they can make like victims, and cry out,
"We was robbed!!!"
It was there all along in plain sight.

Again,
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
Bill Shatzer
2017-04-30 04:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College? If
Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when they were in
power?
It takes more than just "being in power".
To change the presidential election process requires the concurrence
for two thirds of both houses of congress plus the legislatures of
three quarters of the states
I know that.
Your post displayed precious little evidence of any such knowledge.
Post by a425couple
And the Democratic Party has never even been concerned enough about the
Electoral College to begin trying to change it. Until now, when they can
make like victims, and cry out, "We was robbed!!!" It was there all
along in plain sight.
Lemme see.

Ed Gosset, Hubert Humphrey, Emanuel Cellar, Birch Bayh, Jesse Jackson,
and (too late to make the first cited article) Barbara Boxer.

Solid Democrats all. In fact the only Republican I see mentioned is
Henry Cabot Lodge - and he was a co-sponsor with Gosset, a Democrat,

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=979

http://tinyurl.com/hgq2fmp
Post by a425couple
Again,
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
Belief hardly enters into it. Still, it is worth noting in passing that
the Constitution once explicitly sanctioned slavery. The constitution
was not a perfect document before the 13th amendment and it's not
perfect now.

That's why the FFs included Article V. With apparently more vision than
you display.

peace and justice,
None of the Above
2017-04-30 11:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College? If
Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when they were in
power?
It takes more than just "being in power".
To change the presidential election process requires the concurrence
for two thirds of both houses of congress plus the legislatures of
three quarters of the states
I know that.
Your post displayed precious little evidence of any such knowledge.
Post by a425couple
And the Democratic Party has never even been concerned enough about the
Electoral College to begin trying to change it. Until now, when they can
make like victims, and cry out, "We was robbed!!!" It was there all
along in plain sight.
Lemme see.
Ed Gosset, Hubert Humphrey, Emanuel Cellar, Birch Bayh, Jesse Jackson,
and (too late to make the first cited article) Barbara Boxer.
Solid Democrats all. In fact the only Republican I see mentioned is
Henry Cabot Lodge - and he was a co-sponsor with Gosset, a Democrat,
Just a tad short of your two thirds of both houses of congress plus
the legislatures of three quarters of the states, eh?
Post by Bill Shatzer
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=979
http://tinyurl.com/hgq2fmp
Post by a425couple
Again,
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
Belief hardly enters into it. Still, it is worth noting in passing that
the Constitution once explicitly sanctioned slavery. The constitution
was not a perfect document before the 13th amendment and it's not
perfect now.
That's why the FFs included Article V.
Which keeps fuckwits like today's DemocRats from completely
disassembling it via executive or judicial whim.
None of the Above
2017-04-30 11:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College? If
Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when they were in
power?
It takes more than just "being in power".
To change the presidential election process requires the concurrence for
two thirds of both houses of congress plus the legislatures of three
quarters of the states
You understand constitutional amendments, but the electoral process
still escapes you.
Baxter
2017-04-30 14:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College? If
Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when they were in
power?
It takes more than just "being in power".
To change the presidential election process requires the concurrence for
two thirds of both houses of congress plus the legislatures of three
quarters of the states
You understand constitutional amendments, but the electoral process
still escapes you.
We know full well the electorial process. Its flaws was the only way your
Orange Cheeto was made President. It is not, however, democratic as you
right-wingers have portrayed it. But then you don't give a damn about
actual democracy. In Revolutionary times, you would be a Royalist and
staunch supporter of King George.
None of the Above
2017-05-01 11:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:07:32 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by a425couple
Are you really saying that you do not believe in the US Constitution?
You do not like the constitutionally created Electorial College? If
Democrats did not like it, why did they not change it when they were in
power?
It takes more than just "being in power".
To change the presidential election process requires the concurrence for
two thirds of both houses of congress plus the legislatures of three
quarters of the states
You understand constitutional amendments, but the electoral process
still escapes you.
We know full well the electorial process. Its flaws was the only way your
Orange Cheeto was made President. It is not, however, democratic as you
right-wingers have portrayed it. But then you don't give a damn about
actual democracy. In Revolutionary times, you would be a Royalist and
staunch supporter of King George.
You sound hurt. Go get a cookie.
None of the Above
2017-04-30 01:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:04:08 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
So what?
The main media was so out of touch with much of the country,
they proclaimed the election was a slam-dunk.
They were wrong about that, and many other things.
There was no Trump "swell". Hillary won the actual vote. That Trump is
president is because this is not an actual Democracy.
Nor has it ever been. Clear to anyone who managed to stay awake for
the first day of civics class.
Post by Baxter
He "won" by
manipulating the system (by him, by the GOP and by the Russians) - not by
getting the most votes. The media accrately forecasted the popular vote
and the actual will of the People.
Your crack dealer deserves a big tip.
Post by Baxter
Trump's and your efforts to portray him as a popular President and as
having the support of the majority of the People are complete lies. But
then, the right-wing/conservatives don't know how to tell the truth.
As long as the Hillabitch is history, all is well.
Baxter
2017-04-30 04:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:04:08 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
There was no Trump "swell". Hillary won the actual vote. That Trump
is president is because this is not an actual Democracy.
Nor has it ever been. Clear to anyone who managed to stay awake for
the first day of civics class.
And you're one of those idiots that doesn't care that your man was bought
and paid for by the Russian government - all you care about is power.
None of the Above
2017-04-30 11:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 04:04:08 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:04:08 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
There was no Trump "swell". Hillary won the actual vote. That Trump
is president is because this is not an actual Democracy.
Nor has it ever been. Clear to anyone who managed to stay awake for
the first day of civics class.
And you're one of those idiots that doesn't care that your man was bought
and paid for by the Russian government - all you care about is power.
I don't even care about your huge stash of 'alternative facts.'
Al Czervik
2017-05-03 12:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:04:08 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
There was no Trump "swell". Hillary won the actual vote. That Trump
is president is because this is not an actual Democracy.
Nor has it ever been. Clear to anyone who managed to stay awake for
the first day of civics class.
And you're one of those idiots that doesn't care that your man was bought
and paid for by the Russian government...
This is the Left's search for a birth certificate.
None of the Above
2017-04-30 00:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
Baxter
2017-04-30 03:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
It is not irrelavant. We fought the Revolutionary war because the people
on this continent did not feel they were being adequatly represented in
the British government. And that's as relavant today as it was then.
The right wing talks "democracy", but they don't practice it and only
care about power.
None of the Above
2017-04-30 11:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 03:59:00 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
It is not irrelavant. We fought the Revolutionary war because the people
on this continent did not feel they were being adequatly represented in
the British government.
And those very same revolutionaries turned around and created the
electoral college...
Post by Baxter
And that's as relavant today as it was then.
The right wing talks "democracy", but they don't practice it and only
care about power.
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.

Relax. Your bitch lost by the rules of the game. The world is a far
better place for it.
Baxter
2017-04-30 14:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
Post by None of the Above
Relax. Your bitch lost by the rules of the game. The world is a far
better place for it.
Will you continue to think "the world is a far better place for it" when
your Orange Cheeto presses the red button and starts a Nuclear war?
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-04-30 18:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
It devolved into mob rule.

The electoral college is indefensible in terms of a desire for a
constitutional republic. We can have such a republic under our current
Constitution without the anti-republican electoral college. The problem
with the electoral college is not that it is anti-democratic - it is
anti-republican. Abolish it, but keep separation of powers and keep -
and *strengthen* - federalism. Federalism is far more important than
the electoral college. It is time to devolve most federal government
powers back to the states.
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
Relax. Your bitch lost by the rules of the game. The world is a far
better place for it.
Will you continue to think "the world is a far better place for it" when
your Orange Cheeto presses the red button and starts a Nuclear war?
No reason to think that's going to happen.
Baxter
2017-05-01 13:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
It devolved into mob rule.
Except it didn't - at least not on its own. The charge of "mob rule" is
propaganda spread by the enemies of democracy.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-01 20:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
It devolved into mob rule.
Except it didn't - at least not on its own.
Yes, it did.
Post by Baxter
The charge of "mob rule" ispropaganda spread by the enemies of democracy.
The claim that pure democracy doesn't devolve into mob rule is
propaganda spread by someone who imagines he'll be leading the mob.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-01 21:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
It devolved into mob rule.
Except it didn't - at least not on its own. The charge of "mob rule" is
propaganda spread by the enemies of democracy.
"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as
short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison - Federalist #10


"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself."

John Adams - letter to John Taylor, December 1814


Those views are true wisdom.
Baxter
2017-05-01 22:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a
'true democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
It devolved into mob rule.
Except it didn't - at least not on its own. The charge of "mob rule"
is propaganda spread by the enemies of democracy.
"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been
as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison - Federalist #10
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself."
John Adams - letter to John Taylor, December 1814
Those views are true wisdom.
----------
The anti-democratic sentiment that the American Founders and Framers of
the Constitution traced back to classical antiquity relied heavily upon
the conflation of direct democracy in ancient Athens with mob rule, or
ochlocracy. This view stems, in part, from a dominant trend within the
Western intellectual and political traditions which in turn is based on a
key misreading of several classical texts which, until recently, has gone
unquestioned. One of the influential works from antiquity, read and cited
to support the fundamental assumption that extreme disorder and
instability plagued democracy at Athens (as opposed to oligarchic or
mixed regimes like Sparta and Rome) was a political treatise, titled
Athenian Constitution, found in the collected works of Xenophon.
...
A fresh look at this classical text, untainted by the anti-democratic
(anti-Athenian) sentiment that dominated the western political tradition
– a sentiment read back into Xenophon’s own works and attributed to the
author – reveals Athenian direct democracy to be an orderly and stable,
if imperfect, regime well-suited to the task of articulating and
achieving political justice through a form of genuine popular government,
undiluted by representation and unmixed by a separation and balance of
powers.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2110825
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-01 23:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a
'true democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
It devolved into mob rule.
Except it didn't - at least not on its own. The charge of "mob rule"
is propaganda spread by the enemies of democracy.
"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been
as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison - Federalist #10
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself."
John Adams - letter to John Taylor, December 1814
Those views are true wisdom.
----------
The anti-democratic sentiment that the American Founders and Framers of
the Constitution traced back to classical antiquity relied heavily upon
the conflation of direct democracy in ancient Athens with mob rule, or
ochlocracy.
They knew what they were talking about.
None of the Above
2017-05-02 09:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 1 May 2017 22:19:32 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a
'true democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
It devolved into mob rule.
Except it didn't - at least not on its own. The charge of "mob rule"
is propaganda spread by the enemies of democracy.
"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been
as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
James Madison - Federalist #10
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself."
John Adams - letter to John Taylor, December 1814
Those views are true wisdom.
----------
The anti-democratic sentiment that the American Founders and Framers of
the Constitution traced back to classical antiquity relied heavily upon
the conflation of direct democracy in ancient Athens with mob rule, or
ochlocracy. This view stems, in part, from a dominant trend within the
Western intellectual and political traditions which in turn is based on a
key misreading of several classical texts which, until recently, has gone
unquestioned. One of the influential works from antiquity, read and cited
to support the fundamental assumption that extreme disorder and
instability plagued democracy at Athens (as opposed to oligarchic or
mixed regimes like Sparta and Rome) was a political treatise, titled
Athenian Constitution, found in the collected works of Xenophon.
...
A fresh look at this classical text, untainted by the anti-democratic
(anti-Athenian) sentiment that dominated the western political tradition
– a sentiment read back into Xenophon’s own works and attributed to the
author – reveals Athenian direct democracy to be an orderly and stable,
if imperfect, regime well-suited to the task of articulating and
achieving political justice through a form of genuine popular government,
undiluted by representation and unmixed by a separation and balance of
powers.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2110825
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Baxter
2017-05-02 14:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow and does not reflect any
democracy in history. Your definition of "democracy" is the same as
"anarchy" and "mob rule" - and does not reflect how the democracy of Athens
operated.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 14:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow
It's spot on.

"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
Baxter
2017-05-02 17:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow
It's spot on.
"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
Your definition of "democracy" is the same as anarchy. In fact, the Greeks
who invented democracy had courts and laws - which by the sources you have
referenced would amount to an "implied constitution". We see echos of
their judicial system in our Jury System - which requires that the jury be
composed of the defendant's peers, and not some sort of representative
group.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 17:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow
It's spot on.
"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
Your definition of "democracy" is the same as anarchy.
No, it is not. It is 100% accurate. It is where the majority gets to
impose its will on society - that is, on everyone. Anarchy is the
*absence* of any state. You really are weak on political definitions
and theory.

Anyway, the fact remains that your whining about the electoral college -
or *anything* else - being "undemocratic" is stupid and misses the
point, the point being that democracy is not an unalloyed good and
*must* be constrained in the interest first of preventing the trampling
of the rights of minorities, and secondly in preventing mob rule.
Baxter
2017-05-02 18:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow
It's spot on.
"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
Your definition of "democracy" is the same as anarchy.
Yes, it is
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, it is not. It is 100% accurate.
Nope. And it certainly doesn't describe the system the Greeks invented.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
It is where the majority gets to
impose its will on society - that is, on everyone. Anarchy is the
*absence* of any state. You really are weak on political definitions
and theory.
Anyway, the fact remains that your whining about the electoral college
It's your fantasy that I, or anyone, whined about the Electoral College
being undemocratic. Statements of facts are not whining.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
or *anything* else - being "undemocratic" is stupid and misses the
point, the point being that democracy is not an unalloyed good and
*must* be constrained in the interest first of preventing the trampling
of the rights of minorities, and secondly in preventing mob rule.
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy rather
than less - the Republicans are now the anti-democratic party - not only
in being opposed to the Democratic Party, but by being opposed to
democracy itself.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 19:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can
decide
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow
It's spot on.
"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
Your definition of "democracy" is the same as anarchy.
No, it is not. It is 100% accurate.
Nope.
Yep. What I am describing, not "defining", is how democracy works.
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
It is where the majority gets to
impose its will on society - that is, on everyone. Anarchy is the
*absence* of any state. You really are weak on political definitions
and theory.
Anyway, the fact remains that your whining about the electoral college
It's your fantasy that I, or anyone, whined about the Electoral College
being undemocratic.
You: "Hillary won the actual vote. That Trump is president is because
this is not an actual Democracy."

That's whining.
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
or *anything* else - being "undemocratic" is stupid and misses the
point, the point being that democracy is not an unalloyed good and
*must* be constrained in the interest first of preventing the trampling
of the rights of minorities, and secondly in preventing mob rule.
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy rather
than less
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean by
"democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample individual
persons. That's bad and undesirable.
Baxter
2017-05-02 20:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean by
"democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample individual
persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth. Your definition of "democracy" and has no
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support the
ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other minorities and
even the rights of the majority. We need to extend voting rights to more
people and not restrict them as Repuglicans have been doing for some time.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 20:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean by
"democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample individual
persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth.
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
Post by Baxter
Your definition of "democracy"
I didn't give one.
Post by Baxter
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support the
ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other minorities and
even the rights of the majority.
Not in the least. What you call elites "trampling the rights" of others
is nothing of the kind - those others do *not* have rights you
delusionally think they do. What those "elites" are doing is
*preventing* the masses from stealing from them.

Anyway, you ran in terror from quite a lot. You wrote,

You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy rather
than less

to which I responded:

No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean
by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample
individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.

We do not "need" more democracy, and we do not need to do anything to
extend voting rights. Eligible citizens may vote. The burden is on
them to prove eligibility, and that's where the burden belongs.
Baxter
2017-05-03 02:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean
by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample
individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth.
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
Post by Baxter
Your definition of "democracy"
I didn't give one.
Post by Baxter
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support
the ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other
minorities and even the rights of the majority.
Not in the least. What you call elites "trampling the rights" of
others is nothing of the kind - those others do *not* have rights you
delusionally think they do. What those "elites" are doing is
*preventing* the masses from stealing from them.
Anyway, you ran in terror from quite a lot. You wrote,
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy
rather than less
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you
mean by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to
trample individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
We do not "need" more democracy, and we do not need to do anything to
extend voting rights. Eligible citizens may vote. The burden is on
them to prove eligibility, and that's where the burden belongs.
Gish Glallop.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-03 02:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean
by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample
individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth.
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
Post by Baxter
Your definition of "democracy"
I didn't give one.
Post by Baxter
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support
the ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other
minorities and even the rights of the majority.
Not in the least. What you call elites "trampling the rights" of
others is nothing of the kind - those others do *not* have rights you
delusionally think they do. What those "elites" are doing is
*preventing* the masses from stealing from them.
Anyway, you ran in terror from quite a lot. You wrote,
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy
rather than less
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you
mean by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to
trample individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
We do not "need" more democracy, and we do not need to do anything to
extend voting rights. Eligible citizens may vote. The burden is on
them to prove eligibility, and that's where the burden belongs.
Gish Glallop
Unintelligible and meaningless. I'm beginning to get you better and better.
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Unintelligible and meaningless. I'm beginning to get you better and better.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Baxter
2017-05-03 02:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean
by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample
individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth.
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
Post by Baxter
Your definition of "democracy"
I didn't give one.
Post by Baxter
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support
the ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other
minorities and even the rights of the majority.
Not in the least. What you call elites "trampling the rights" of
others is nothing of the kind - those others do *not* have rights you
delusionally think they do. What those "elites" are doing is
*preventing* the masses from stealing from them.
Anyway, you ran in terror from quite a lot. You wrote,
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy
rather than less
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you
mean by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to
trample individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
We do not "need" more democracy, and we do not need to do anything to
extend voting rights. Eligible citizens may vote. The burden is on
them to prove eligibility, and that's where the burden belongs.
Gish Glallop.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-03 02:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean
by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample
individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth.
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
Post by Baxter
Your definition of "democracy"
I didn't give one.
Post by Baxter
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support
the ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other
minorities and even the rights of the majority.
Not in the least. What you call elites "trampling the rights" of
others is nothing of the kind - those others do *not* have rights you
delusionally think they do. What those "elites" are doing is
*preventing* the masses from stealing from them.
Anyway, you ran in terror from quite a lot. You wrote,
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy
rather than less
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you
mean by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to
trample individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
We do not "need" more democracy, and we do not need to do anything to
extend voting rights. Eligible citizens may vote. The burden is on
them to prove eligibility, and that's where the burden belongs.
Gish Glallop.
Why did you write the same nonsense twice?
Al Czervik
2017-05-03 12:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean
by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample
individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth.
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
Post by Baxter
Your definition of "democracy"
I didn't give one.
Post by Baxter
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support
the ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other
minorities and even the rights of the majority.
Not in the least. What you call elites "trampling the rights" of
others is nothing of the kind - those others do *not* have rights you
delusionally think they do. What those "elites" are doing is
*preventing* the masses from stealing from them.
Anyway, you ran in terror from quite a lot. You wrote,
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy
rather than less
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you
mean by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to
trample individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
We do not "need" more democracy, and we do not need to do anything to
extend voting rights. Eligible citizens may vote. The burden is on
them to prove eligibility, and that's where the burden belongs.
Gish Glallop.
Why did you write the same nonsense twice?
Cut and paste.
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Why did you write the same nonsense twice?
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
None of the Above
2017-05-03 10:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 3 May 2017 02:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean
by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample
individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth.
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
Post by Baxter
Your definition of "democracy"
I didn't give one.
Post by Baxter
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support
the ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other
minorities and even the rights of the majority.
Not in the least. What you call elites "trampling the rights" of
others is nothing of the kind - those others do *not* have rights you
delusionally think they do. What those "elites" are doing is
*preventing* the masses from stealing from them.
Anyway, you ran in terror from quite a lot. You wrote,
You miss the point that we need to work towards more democracy
rather than less
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you
mean by "democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to
trample individual persons. That's bad and undesirable.
We do not "need" more democracy, and we do not need to do anything to
extend voting rights. Eligible citizens may vote. The burden is on
them to prove eligibility, and that's where the burden belongs.
Gish Glallop.
Bax, you silly bunt! You can't even get the name of your 'debate
style' right...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
I didn't say your "definition" - I said your goal. I'm right.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
None of the Above
2017-05-03 10:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 May 2017 20:31:51 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean by
"democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample individual
persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth. Your definition of "democracy" and has no
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support the
ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other minorities and
even the rights of the majority. We need to extend voting rights to more
people and not restrict them as Repuglicans have been doing for some time.
More people? Illegals, deceased, canine, felons, North Koreans? You
'Rats already do that, and it still didn't work for you.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-03 15:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
On Tue, 2 May 2017 20:31:51 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that. What you mean by
"democracy" is simply the ability of the majority to trample individual
persons. That's bad and undesirable.
No, that's not my definition of democracy - you're trying to your
definitions in my mouth. Your definition of "democracy" and has no
historical or real world existance. You, on the other hand, support the
ability of a elite minority to trample the rights of other minorities and
even the rights of the majority. We need to extend voting rights to more
people and not restrict them as Repuglicans have been doing for some time.
More people? Illegals, deceased, canine, felons, North Koreans? You
'Rats already do that, and it still didn't work for you.
At the core of "extend voting rights" is the desire to get more people
to vote for the left - by whatever means necessary. There can be no
meaningful "extension" of voting rights. The right to vote is what it
is. It is legally and morally limited to citizens who are not otherwise
disqualified, and that is proper.

The other thing that he means is he wants a simple popular vote to
determine more things than it does. I agree with some of it, including
the abolition of the electoral college. I do *not* support a national
referendum or initiative process.
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
It is legally and morally limited to citizens who are not otherwise
disqualified, and that is proper.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, absolutely we do *not* need to work toward that.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, it is not. It is 100% accurate.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
None of the Above
2017-05-03 10:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 2 May 2017 17:23:37 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow
It's spot on.
"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
Your definition of "democracy" is the same as anarchy.
No. In anarchy, I don't give a whit what my neighbors think as I take
your stuff.
Post by Baxter
In fact, the Greeks
who invented democracy had courts and laws - which by the sources you have
referenced would amount to an "implied constitution". We see echos of
their judicial system in our Jury System - which requires that the jury be
composed of the defendant's peers, and not some sort of representative
group.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-03 15:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
On Tue, 2 May 2017 17:23:37 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
In a "pure democracy", a simple majority of your neighbors can decide
your stuff should be theirs.
Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow
It's spot on.
"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
Your definition of "democracy" is the same as anarchy.
No. In anarchy, I don't give a whit what my neighbors think as I take
your stuff.
That's not what anarchy is, either.
Post by None of the Above
Post by Baxter
In fact, the Greeks
who invented democracy had courts and laws - which by the sources you have
referenced would amount to an "implied constitution". We see echos of
their judicial system in our Jury System - which requires that the jury be
composed of the defendant's peers, and not some sort of representative
group.
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
That's not what anarchy is, either.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.

Schuman
2017-05-02 17:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
"Democracy", even broadly speaking, is not an unalloyed good. That's
simply a fact.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
None of the Above
2017-05-01 11:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:10:42 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
Is that why Greece is the world power it is today?

Didn't you also say that about Soviet socialism - it just needed a few
tweaks?
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
Relax. Your bitch lost by the rules of the game. The world is a far
better place for it.
Will you continue to think "the world is a far better place for it" when
your Orange Cheeto presses the red button and starts a Nuclear war?
You still sound hurt. Go get another cookie.
Baxter
2017-05-01 14:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by None of the Above
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:10:42 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
Is that why Greece is the world power it is today?
Didn't you also say that about Soviet socialism - it just needed a few
tweaks?
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
Relax. Your bitch lost by the rules of the game. The world is a far
better place for it.
Will you continue to think "the world is a far better place for it" when
your Orange Cheeto presses the red button and starts a Nuclear war?
You still sound hurt. Go get another cookie.
What you don't know is over half the voices you here supporting your
ideology and your Orange Cheeto are Russian bots and trolls.
None of the Above
2017-05-02 09:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 1 May 2017 14:36:48 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:10:42 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
Is that why Greece is the world power it is today?
Didn't you also say that about Soviet socialism - it just needed a few
tweaks?
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
Relax. Your bitch lost by the rules of the game. The world is a far
better place for it.
Will you continue to think "the world is a far better place for it" when
your Orange Cheeto presses the red button and starts a Nuclear war?
You still sound hurt. Go get another cookie.
What you don't know is over half the voices you here supporting your
ideology and your Orange Cheeto are Russian bots and trolls.
Russkies under every bed, eh?

I guess... they even hacked your spell-czecher!
Al Czervik
2017-05-03 12:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
...because those revolutionaries understood the foolishness of a 'true
democracy'.
That's elitist propaganda. Greek democracy worked just fine.
I'm sure the slaves thought Greek democracy was just swell. But then
you're a Leftist, a racist and a fucking idiot.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-04-30 18:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
It is not irrelavant. We fought the Revolutionary war because the people
on this continent did not feel they were being adequatly represented in
the British government. And that's as relavant today as it was then.
The right wing talks "democracy", but they don't practice it and only
care about power.
Conservatives do not talk about "democracy". They advocate for
representative republicanism.

As I have explained, the problem with the electoral college is not that
it is anti-democratic - it is that it is anti-republican. All the
benefits of limited government, divided at the federal level among three
branches, and divided at the national level between the states and the
central government, can be preserved even with the abolition of the
electoral college.
Baxter
2017-05-01 14:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
It is not irrelavant. We fought the Revolutionary war because the people
on this continent did not feel they were being adequatly represented in
the British government. And that's as relavant today as it was then.
The right wing talks "democracy", but they don't practice it and only
care about power.
Conservatives do not talk about "democracy". They advocate for
representative republicanism.
As I have explained, the problem with the electoral college is not that
it is anti-democratic - it is that it is anti-republican. All the
benefits of limited government, divided at the federal level among three
branches, and divided at the national level between the states and the
central government, can be preserved even with the abolition of the
electoral college.
You clearly have your own, alternative definitions of "republic" and of
"democracy". The Electoral College is the very essence of republic -
'electing or appointing others to decide for you'.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-01 20:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper
and
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
It is not irrelavant. We fought the Revolutionary war because the
people
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
on this continent did not feel they were being adequatly represented
in
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
the British government. And that's as relavant today as it was then.
The right wing talks "democracy", but they don't practice it and only
care about power.
Conservatives do not talk about "democracy". They advocate for
representative republicanism.
As I have explained, the problem with the electoral college is not that
it is anti-democratic - it is that it is anti-republican. All the
benefits of limited government, divided at the federal level among
three
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
branches, and divided at the national level between the states and the
central government, can be preserved even with the abolition of the
electoral college.
You clearly have your own, alternative definitions of "republic" and of
"democracy".
I dont.
Post by a425couple
The Electoral College is the very essence of republic -
'electing or appointing others to decide for you'.
NO, that's wrong, of course. The essence of republicanism is that
citizens should have roughly equal representation. A system predicated
on representation rather than direct participation already is not
democratic - by design. However, each citizen should have equal
representation in order for the principle of republicanism to be in effect.

There are lots of features beyond the electoral college that are not
democratic, and that does not in any way make them "bad" or "unfair".
As I have explained before, the process for amending the Constitution.
First, super-majorities are required in Congress either to pass an
amendment before submitting it to the states for ratification, or to
call for a constitutional convention. Second, a super-majority of
states must ratify it. Finally, suppose an amendment is two states
short of the required number for ratification, and those two states are
California and Wyoming. Suppose California's legislature votes 80% to
20% to ratify it, and Wyoming's votes 51% to 49% to reject it. The
amendment fails - and this is not "bad" or "unfair".
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 02:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper
and
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
It is not irrelavant. We fought the Revolutionary war because the
people
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
on this continent did not feel they were being adequatly represented
in
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
the British government. And that's as relavant today as it was then.
The right wing talks "democracy", but they don't practice it and only
care about power.
Conservatives do not talk about "democracy". They advocate for
representative republicanism.
As I have explained, the problem with the electoral college is not that
it is anti-democratic - it is that it is anti-republican. All the
benefits of limited government, divided at the federal level among
three
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
branches, and divided at the national level between the states and the
central government, can be preserved even with the abolition of the
electoral college.
You clearly have your own, alternative definitions of "republic" and of
"democracy".
I dont.
Post by a425couple
The Electoral College is the very essence of republic -
'electing or appointing others to decide for you'.
NO, that's wrong, of course. The essence of republicanism is that
citizens should have roughly equal representation. A system predicated
on representation rather than direct participation already is not
democratic - by design. However, each citizen should have equal
representation in order for the principle of republicanism to be in effect.
There are lots of features beyond the electoral college that are not
democratic, and that does not in any way make them "bad" or "unfair". As
I have explained before, the process for amending the Constitution.
First, super-majorities are required in Congress either to pass an
amendment before submitting it to the states for ratification, or to
call for a constitutional convention. Second, a super-majority of
states must ratify it. Finally, suppose an amendment is two states
short of the required number for ratification, and those two states are
California and Wyoming. Suppose California's legislature votes 80% to
20% to ratify it, and Wyoming's votes 51% to 49% to reject it. The
amendment fails - and this is not "bad" or "unfair".
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic, which of course is one of the best features of it. A
constitution exists to prevent a majority from trampling the rights of
minorities, including individual persons - one person is as small a
minority as exists. The majority does not, and should not, have the
power to trample the rights of of anyone.
Baxter
2017-05-02 02:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic,
Ah, no. You're making up your own definitions of these things. Your claim
is moronic.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 03:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic,
Ah, no. You're making up your own definitions of these things.
No, I'm not - not in the least. Of *course* a written and enforced
constitution is anti-democratic. It means that the democratic majority
may not do just whatever 50% plus one person want to do. This is just
obvious. You have to be working at being stupid in order not to see it.

Of course, you had none of your usual smart-ass retorts to my
observation that the process for amending the Constitution is greatly
undemocratic - and good for that reason.
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 03:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic,
Ah, no. You're making up your own definitions of these things.
No, I'm not - not in the least. Of *course* a written and enforced
constitution is anti-democratic. It means that the democratic majority
may not do just whatever 50% plus one person want to do. This is just
obvious. You have to be working at being stupid in order not to see it.
Of course, you had none of your usual smart-ass retorts to my
observation that the process for amending the Constitution is greatly
undemocratic - and good for that reason.
Here's a great page expositing just how wrong you are:
http://the-ivory-tower.com/the-undemocratic-nature-of-constitutions/

His main point is comparing the undemocratic aspect of written
constitutions - *any* of them - with an unwritten one like that of the
United Kingdom, but what he correctly says is applicable to any and all,
whether written or not.
Baxter
2017-05-02 14:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic,
Ah, no. You're making up your own definitions of these things.
No, I'm not - not in the least. Of *course* a written and enforced
constitution is anti-democratic. It means that the democratic majority
may not do just whatever 50% plus one person want to do. This is just
obvious. You have to be working at being stupid in order not to see it.
Of course, you had none of your usual smart-ass retorts to my
observation that the process for amending the Constitution is greatly
undemocratic - and good for that reason.
http://the-ivory-tower.com/the-undemocratic-nature-of-constitutions/
His main point is comparing the undemocratic aspect of written
constitutions - *any* of them - with an unwritten one like that of the
United Kingdom, but what he correctly says is applicable to any and all,
whether written or not.
Conservative propaganda website.

http://tinyurl.com/m67t9ch
Jeffrey VanRensselaer
2017-05-02 14:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic,
Ah, no. You're making up your own definitions of these things.
No, I'm not - not in the least. Of *course* a written and enforced
constitution is anti-democratic. It means that the democratic
majority
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
may not do just whatever 50% plus one person want to do. This is just
obvious. You have to be working at being stupid in order not to see
it.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Of course, you had none of your usual smart-ass retorts to my
observation that the process for amending the Constitution is greatly
undemocratic - and good for that reason.
http://the-ivory-tower.com/the-undemocratic-nature-of-constitutions/
His main point is comparing the undemocratic aspect of written
constitutions - *any* of them - with an unwritten one like that of the
United Kingdom, but what he correctly says is applicable to any and
all,whether written or not.
Conservative propaganda website.
No, it isn't - and the author is a leftist - but even if it were, which
it isn't, how does that affect the truth of what was written? This is
always your stock response when you're beaten: to engage in ad hominem
invective against a well-written piece that shows your massive errors.
Schuman
2017-05-02 17:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
No, it isn't - and the author is a leftist - but even if it were, which
it isn't,
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Baxter
2017-05-02 13:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic,
Ah, no. You're making up your own definitions of these things.
No, I'm not - not in the least. Of *course* a written and enforced
constitution is anti-democratic. It means that the democratic majority
may not do just whatever 50% plus one person want to do.
See, that's your definition and it is simply incorrect. There is nothing at
all to say that a democratic majority can't agree ti a constitution.
Frank Tomaszewski
2017-05-02 14:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
Post by Baxter
Post by Jeffrey VanRensselaer
The very idea of constitutionally limited government itself is
undemocratic,
Ah, no. You're making up your own definitions of these things.
No, I'm not - not in the least. Of *course* a written and enforced
constitution is anti-democratic. It means that the democratic majority
may not do just whatever 50% plus one person want to do. This is just
obvious. You have to be working at being stupid in order not to see it.
Of course, you had none of your usual smart-ass retorts to my
observation that the process for amending the Constitution is greatly
undemocratic - and good for that reason.
See, that's your definition and it is simply incorrect.
No, it's not a "definition". It's a *description* of what a
constitution does. A constitution *prevents* the simple majority from
doing just whatever it likes, and that is inherently undemocratic. This
is obvious.
Post by Baxter
There is nothing atall to say that a democratic majority can't agree ti a constitution.
If they do, they have just greatly reduced democracy. And of course,
the ability of a simple majority to agree to do bad things is precisely
why the founders opposed the kind of democracy you advocate. Such a
democracy is bad - toxic.

You and other leftists always blurt "b-b-but it's undemocratic!" about
the electoral college and other undemocratic features as if that's a bad
thing - as if it's "obvious" that democracy is the be-all and end-all
for political systems. But you're wrong. A slavish devotion to
democracy is *not* a good thing, and our founders understood that.
That's why there are numerous undemocratic aspects to our system of
government. Those are features, not defects - they are good.

It's also comically easy to trip you up and catch you in gross
inconsistencies. Here's one. In some cities that have sizable
racial/ethnic minorities, court orders have been issued mandating
districts for the election of city councilmen, rather than an at-large
system previously used. Now, a court dictating a city's electoral
system *already* is anti-democratic. But why *shouldn't* all voters in
a city get to elect *all* of the city councilmen? It's not as if the
interests in one district are materially different from those in
another, as the interests in a congressional district in Oregon might
differ from those in a district in Florida. No, it would be *FAR* more
democratic for a city to have an at-large system of electing city
councilmen. But you *support* such court orders - because you're a
race-obsessed leftist whose commitment to democracy is just a smokescreen.
Baxter
2017-05-02 17:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
Post by Baxter
See, that's your definition and it is simply incorrect.
No, it's not a "definition". It's a *description* of what a
constitution does. A constitution *prevents* the simple majority from
doing just whatever it likes, and that is inherently undemocratic.
This is obvious.
The greeks invented democracy, and they had courts and laws that prevented
the "simple majority from doing just whatever it likes". Your definition
of "democracy" is "group anarchy"
Frank Tomaszewski
2017-05-02 17:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
Post by Baxter
See, that's your definition and it is simply incorrect.
No, it's not a "definition". It's a *description* of what a
constitution does. A constitution *prevents* the simple majority from
doing just whatever it likes, and that is inherently undemocratic. This
is obvious.
The greeks invented democracy, and they had courts and laws that prevented
the "simple majority from doing just whatever it likes".
Oh - in other words, they had *undemocratic* institutions to rein in
democracy. Got it - thanks for the clarification!

Let's put back the part you snipped, since I'm sure your failure to
respond to it was merely accidental:

You and other leftists always blurt "b-b-but it's undemocratic!" about
the electoral college and other undemocratic features as if that's a bad
thing - as if it's "obvious" that democracy is the be-all and end-all
for political systems. But you're wrong. A slavish devotion to
democracy is *not* a good thing, and our founders understood that.
That's why there are numerous undemocratic aspects to our system of
government. Those are features, not defects - they are good.

It's also comically easy to trip you up and catch you in gross
inconsistencies. Here's one. In some cities that have sizable
racial/ethnic minorities, court orders have been issued mandating
districts for the election of city councilmen, rather than an at-large
system previously used. Now, a court dictating a city's electoral
system *already* is anti-democratic. But why *shouldn't* all voters in
a city get to elect *all* of the city councilmen? It's not as if the
interests in one district are materially different from those in
another, as the interests in a congressional district in Oregon might
differ from those in a district in Florida. No, it would be *FAR* more
democratic for a city to have an at-large system of electing city
councilmen. But you *support* such court orders - because you're a
race-obsessed leftist whose commitment to democracy is just a smokescreen.
Schuman
2017-05-03 19:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
Let's put back the part you snipped, since I'm sure your failure to
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Al Czervik
2017-05-03 12:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
Post by Baxter
See, that's your definition and it is simply incorrect.
No, it's not a "definition". It's a *description* of what a
constitution does. A constitution *prevents* the simple majority from
doing just whatever it likes, and that is inherently undemocratic.
This is obvious.
The greeks invented democracy...
Tomorrow, when the factions of your remaining brains cells fight for a
plurality and form a coalition to destroy the rest, you'll say it was
the Iroquois.
Schuman
2017-05-02 17:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
You and other leftists always blurt "b-b-but it's undemocratic!"
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Frank Tomaszewski
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Al Czervik
2017-05-03 12:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Baxter
Post by None of the Above
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
Post by Baxter
Post by a425couple
The Media Bubble Is Worse Than You Think
We crunched the data on where journalists work and how fast it's
changing. The results should worry you.
By Jack Shafer and Tucker Doherty
May/June 2017
These bubbles represent the 150 counties with the most newspaper and
internet publishing jobs. | Illustration by DataPoint
(go to site to see graphs & maps etc.)
How did big media miss the Donald Trump swell?
Clinton won the popular vote. She had more votes than Trump.
Utterly irrelevant to anyone who managed to stay awake for the first
day of civics class.
It is not irrelavant. We fought the Revolutionary war because the people
on this continent did not feel they were being adequatly represented in
the British government. And that's as relavant today as it was then.
The right wing talks "democracy", but they don't practice it and only
care about power.
You were asleep.

The population of England was over 5X that of the American colonies
(12.9M v. 2.5M). In a pure democratic vote they win. You lose again.
Loading...