What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
Got Hot Plans For New Year's? Now You Do. view!
bing.com - Find the hottest NYE events in your area--from live rock gigs to rap shows to 007 themed parties.
250 Comments
- lazersloth, on 06/17/2009, -19/+76Take note, this loon of a politician said"
"Norm Coleman and the challenger Al Franken. Sen. Coleman won the race on election day, but that was challenged repeatedly, over and over, with what we feel may be fraudulent vote [sic], and we’re very concerned about what comes forward."
Guess what crazy lady, Minnesota law mandated that Coleman vs Franken be recounted. No individual or party "challenged" the initial result. The law of Minnesota mandated that there be a recount. This is a prefect example of how these fringe elements like Bachman say outrageous stuff like this and no one bothers to tell point out that they are completely wrong.
When will people stop publishing let alone ask nut cases like Michelle Bachman what their stupid opinions are? They have never and probably never will have any real credibility in a world based on facts compared to fantasy. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -33/+88Paranoid Loon, party of one...Paranoid Loon
- bilbus, on 06/18/2009, -9/+52i won't answer those questions either ... so good for her.
- porque, on 06/18/2009, -2/+45Is what she doing actually illegal? She says she will answer the question pertaining to the number of people in her home. Isn't that all she's required to answer or am I wrong?
- THEROC, on 06/18/2009, -29/+60Good for her. The census is just one of thousands of government intrusions in our lives that ought to be opposed.
- poonjob, on 06/18/2009, -6/+35what's the big deal here. That's all they get from me, # of people in my house.
- chadarizona, on 06/18/2009, -5/+33Actually, census data was used to round up Japanese-Americans during the WWII internment, so it wouldn't be that surprising that the govt use the data for nefarious purposes. See the Seattle PI article here: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/cens17.shtml
- charlie6969, on 06/17/2009, -22/+50President Obama; take note.
She is telling you in advance that she is going to break the law..... :) - mnpilot, on 06/17/2009, -10/+36State Bird is a loon, go figure.
- sciencelovesyou, on 06/18/2009, -15/+40Yes, GOD FORBID the government discover basic statistical information about the populace. Why, once they know how many toilets are in my home, they'll be able to crush me under their jackboot!
- DavidGX, on 06/18/2009, -3/+27If that's all the constitution requires then... that's all you should answer.
- KibblesnBitts, on 06/18/2009, -15/+39The census is mandated by The Constitution, buddy. It says that in the first sentence of the article, and the document itself confirms it in Article 1, Section 2
- LauraNo, on 06/17/2009, -25/+45OMG. She is crazy for real. No pretending in order to rile up the stupid base while expecting regular-people republicans to be understanding. On top of that, her grammar is as bad as PALIN'S! OMG. Shame on the republicans and the republican party for putting forth these people. The things they do, say and vote on effect real people's real lives! This is not some game where you 'win' some ego affirmation thru nutbar rantings. JCA.
- GovernmentsGun, on 06/18/2009, -11/+30She beat me to it. That was my plan. After all, the Constitution only says they should take an enumeration of the number of people.
Do you know what the rest of it is for? It's free research for corporations. Nice fat corporate charity so they don't have to pay for it on their own. ***** them. Neither government nor corporations need that much insight into my life. - Anomaly100, on 06/17/2009, -5/+24LOL!! She must feel at home there.
- zediker, on 06/18/2009, -1/+18Ok, before people start blathering, first educate yourselves...
United States Code, Title 13: Census
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode13/usc_sec ...
Read that before commenting further. Technically she isnt breaking the law, you can refuse to answer the census, at an up to $100 fine. What she is doing, falls under that. - inactive, on 06/18/2009, -8/+24What's hilarious about this is that tracygav makes boasting about law breaking look like a bad thing. What about the thousands of diggers that constantly boast about smoking illegal substances? Is it only OK to boast about certain broken laws, but not about opting out of a census of all things?
Double standards, let's see more please. - GovernmentsGun, on 06/18/2009, -1/+17That's what the constitution requires.
- skav, on 06/18/2009, -2/+18No, that's a description document describing all the ins and outs of the "American Community Survey" which isn't the main census. It's a rolling mini-census that takes a tiny smattering of the population and asks more in-depth questions. The document you link is huge, but it's a reference document - it's not even the "ACS" form, which is actually pretty short.
http://www.census.gov/acs
Here's the actual census document that everybody has to fill out, per the constitution:
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questio ... - kolobcreek, on 06/18/2009, -12/+28Well if you were Hitler and you were looking for Jews, Cripples, or Political dissidents this would make it a lot easier.
- 0tis, on 06/18/2009, -2/+17I can understand her point of view on that, at least. The whole ACORN thing is just stupid.
All the Constitution requires is that the people be counted; the rest of the information is collected for the purpose of statistical profiling. While I can understand how that can be helpful to a government, I can't help feeling that in an ideal world the government wouldn't feel the need to create policy based on racial or religious profiling. - eyepennies, on 06/18/2009, -9/+24Paranoid Loon, party of Republicans.
- alasdairmacl, on 06/18/2009, -2/+16Godwins law!
- Anomaly100, on 06/17/2009, -23/+37She's not even a "lovable" crazy woman, just plain ol' crazy. The census was okay with the wingnuts every year Bush/Cheney was in power, but now, it's an ACORN conspiracy. She said she'll break the law which brings us a dilemma. Do we lock her up or put her on the psych ward? Hmm...
- anarcurt, on 06/18/2009, -4/+18Article one mandates that the number of representatives be determined through enumeration. This is a head count. She said she would answer how many people lived in her household. From the way the law reads I say it does not violate constitutional law to not answer the remaining questions.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumerat ... - tungliang, on 06/18/2009, -6/+20Is there anything that the government could ask you that would make you say "None of your business?"
Or are we all sheep? - DudeInAustin, on 06/18/2009, -4/+17I answer the parts of the census that pertain to the constitutional requirement to apportion representation. The rest is simply government nosiness and I can't find it authorized anywhere in the constitution. Think about it: the federal government is going to PUNISH people because they don't want to tell them how many toilets we have! We are supposed to tolerate this in a free country?
This has been my approach to the census for the last two of them. The mark of a free society is that the citizens get left alone. - spookyttws, on 06/18/2009, -9/+21There are far to many things wrong with her comments, from the weird 1985-vibe (look lady, I fight for my privacy contently, I don't even like Supermarket clubs because they track my buying habits, but the census goes back at least 300 years and isn't very personal, they're just trying to accurately gauge the population and their standings), ACORN is not some sinister "out to destroy America" organization , and I'm sorry, but even though Norm Coleman was prematurely declared the winner the recount has showed that Franken has more votes, and it's Coleman whos causing the delay because of his whining to the courts (who also continue to say Franken won.)
- gaqua, on 06/18/2009, -7/+17It's one thing when a stranger on the internet brags about smoking pot.
It's another thing when that person is an elected official.
Double standards exist because different expectations exist.
I wouldn't care if my boss had a drink before work every day to calm his nerves - but you can bet I'd care if he was a neurosurgeon. - JoeMondo, on 06/18/2009, -6/+16Yes, because her situation is just like that of a runaway slave.
Except what she's running away from is knowledge and sanity. - DiscoUnderpants, on 06/18/2009, -4/+13@chadarizona
Indeed. If the Japanese-American population had not indicated that they were of Japanese ancestry in the census they nobody would have ever known that they were Japanese descent. - LenBaird, on 06/18/2009, -2/+11You're right. This smacks of a flim flam operation to make it look like the law requires you to answer more than that, which is untrue.
- Noland1967, on 06/17/2009, -21/+30WOW, talk about the need for a public health care plan. This woman needs to take advantage of the FREE FOR LIFE plan she and the rest of Congress has and start refilling her prescription...like NOW. She should also share that prescription (it may be illegal but she is already espousing plans to break the law, so why stop with the census) with the people who keep voting for her because they need it as much if not more than she does.
- LucidHawk, on 06/18/2009, -7/+16BIG ***** DEAL the reason behind a census and the definition of census is a counting of people. The woman said she would answer that part. I wouldn't answer other questions either unless I find them reasonable and not a waste of my time. There isn't any law that would require I answer the other questions anyways. Better jail me and millions of other Americans for not sucking Big Brothers dick.
- Mallus, on 06/18/2009, -2/+11You Demoblicans and Republicrats sure are funny the way you guys constantly trumpet even the most trivial of *possibly* disparaging things against each other!
- L0cKe, on 06/18/2009, -13/+21The congresswoman says she will abide by the Constitution and divulge the basic information the Constitution calls for. I may join her.
This is what the census has become: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010ACSnoteb ... - cycowolf, on 06/18/2009, -4/+11Ummmm she isn't breaking the law. I don't quite understand why so many people are saying that she is when they have no right to ask you so much information. No offense but why do they need to know how many toilets I have. Does the future of our nation hang on the availability of places to take a crap. I'm not answering all those questions.
- GovernmentsGun, on 06/18/2009, -1/+8@sultharnao
50/50 chance. There are only two parties of frothing lunatics in government. They exclude all other frothing lunatics. - Paranor01, on 06/18/2009, -0/+7@aadyss: I know you're a troll, so my response is for everyone else.
The census goes out no matter who is President at the time. Just because you're paid to be against the current President, doesn't mean he's gathering the info for his own. The government gathers it for the required agencies (ie: taxation). So when it's done in 10 years more, whoever is President then will not give a rats ass about the "personal" info any more than President Obama gives a rats ass about it. - killamockingbrd, on 06/18/2009, -3/+10Sadly no. She represents the St. Cloud area which is full of bat-***** crazy bible humpers. I drive through an area she represents on my way to the lake. I don't stop there. Ever.
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -0/+7The constitution doesn't mandate anything other than a count of heads. Not a determination of race or a determination of whether you own your home or rent (another question they ask).
- Paranor01, on 06/18/2009, -1/+8Your tin foil hat is showing.
Oh, and you forgot your meds... - Dreeon, on 06/18/2009, -4/+11Good to see that she's still bat-***** crazy after all these years...
- consonance, on 06/18/2009, -0/+6Show me where questions beyond number of residents; residents' names, sex, age, and race; and telephone number are in the 2010 census.
- consonance, on 06/18/2009, -3/+9That isn't the census. That is the American Community Survey, which is not the same thing as the census.
- pintomp3, on 06/18/2009, -2/+8Would she have answered the questions if the census was being carried out by the McCain administration?
- teebird, on 06/18/2009, -0/+6@aadyss
You could have said something pointed, witty, insightful or at least on point, but, all fact and reason be damned, you settled for going straight to the gutter. Thank you for providing us with one more example...as if one were needed...of the sorry state of what passes for public discourse in the US today. - mah2cent, on 06/18/2009, -2/+8According to the following post, the only thing required of the census is enumeration and its original purpose was to establish representation and taxation. Read the following for more information:
First, let’s look at the Census issue. Stated in Article 1, Section 2 of our constitution:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years; and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years of the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.
There are a couple of things that stand out in this passage. First, an actual enumeration (simple head count) shall be made every ten years. This count of heads is all that is authorized by the constitution, and is to be done so that a proper ratio between the representatives and the people can be determined, and to also determine the proper apportionment of direct taxes among the several states. As an aside, the number of representatives has been fixed at 435 since 1911. The total population of the United States in 1911 was 93,863,000. Obviously, our population has increased almost three and one half times since then without any change in representation. Secondly, the writers of our current constitution said that there should not be more than one representative for every thirty thousand people, and going forward from the original 65 members, the rule of one representative for every thirty thousand people was generally accepted. As I will discuss later, there were no fixed upper limits on the number of representatives, but the Founders did caution against too large a number; but why?
The ratio of representatives to people was not exact as heavily populated centers would have fewer representatives per capita, but the end result was to be full and fair representation of all the people. Since the number of representatives has been fixed for almost one hundred years, what is the point of the current Census? Since no additional representation is even being discussed and no talk or legislation exists to change this number, is the Census now valid and/or constitutional? I do realize that specific district changes do occur and that apportionment of some taxes (actually very little) is still constitutional, but I think a very good argument could be made that not only is the modern Census completely unnecessary, but that it might now be unconstitutional as well due to the fact that the primary reasoning for this count has been thrown aside by the federal government. If no count will result in a change of representation, then the costly and invasive U.S. Census should be stopped immediately. Obviously, the modern census count is used not to determine representation as originally intended anyway, but is used as a tool to determine the improper and unconstitutional amounts of wealth redistribution, and to gain personal and private information about the citizenry. The coming census also includes a precise mapping by GPS of every address. What in the world does locking in my home position in a government database have to do with representation or apportionment? This information, by the way, is none of their damn business! This in and of itself is reason enough to scrap this invasion of privacy because the entire census count is nothing more than a farce to help expand government interference into private matters.
What does all this mean? A breakdown of the numbers is useful here. Initially, there was one representative for every 30,000 people. In 1911 when the representative number became fixed at 435, there was one representative for every 216,000 people. Currently, there is one representative for approximately every 760,000 Americans. If we were to go back to the original plan, we would now have to have about 11,000 representatives. Is anybody up to 11,000 campaigns and elections every two years? Before you answer, think about the unseen consequences.
Perhaps the census has outlived its usefulness. And, by the way, does anyone know why the government will require all census takers to record the gps of your residence? What could that possibly have to do with the census? - CTK14A, on 06/18/2009, -0/+6I can't speak for ACORN; I don't work for them. I HAVE done voter registration in the red states, and it can get real ugly.
As for 'illegal voting activities' -- a few of their employees are currently on trial for making up voter registration forms. The organization should have, and -- due to the risk of expensive legal ramifications for voter fraud -- DOES have rigorous quality control of the forms their employees collect door to door. Try setting up a field office and getting dozens of employees who'll work for low wages part-time on short notice. There are bound to be knuckleheads who slip through the cracks and try to get paid for making ***** up. Their illegitimate forms should never make it past the quality control process, but when you've got part-time office staff and a deadline, sometimes Mickey Mouse's voter registration form does indeed make it to the Board of Elections. That employee should be found and brought up on charges, I have no argument there.
However, states across the nation have been making it more difficult on professional voter reg groups to do quality control on their own people. For example, did the employee initial their name on the form so that the office can track who's making ***** up? Invalid registration, voter cannot vote. (Furthermore, did the voter complete their registration with the wrong color ink? Invalid registration, voter cannot vote. Did the voter filling out the form forget to check one box? Invalid registration, voter cannot vote. Imagine this on a scale of tens of thousands of registrations and you get the idea.)
ACORN was on trial in Arizona because they had 'a quota system' for the number of registrations each employee had to collect in a given day. That's just *****. When you employ canvassers at an hourly rate, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to fire people who get paid yet aren't producing any results -- that's just poor management otherwise. It's called quality control. This isn't a communist country -- people who get paid yet don't do their job should get *****.
The case in Arizona is a political hack job designed by conservative lawmakers to stop registering certain segments of the population from being able to vote in their state. The legal cost of blatantly violating election law is infinitely higher than the supposed gains from faking registrations.
Where'd you get your information? I'd like to read more. - acholon, on 06/18/2009, -10/+15The sad thing is she doesn't even understand Minnesota law (that election by law was to be recounted) and she is representing us in Washington.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 253 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is