|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 281 of 536:
| 
Nov 4 18:39 UTC 2003 |
(Since no real conservative would argue party-line points with such dogged
idiocy, you *must* be a liberal.)
|
other
|
|
response 282 of 536:
|
Nov 5 02:48 UTC 2003 |
klg is obviously an intelligent person with dedication to his ideals
so he must, by definition, be a liberal!
|
klg
|
|
response 283 of 536:
|
Nov 5 03:57 UTC 2003 |
(Anyone around here know the definition of "liberal"?)
|
other
|
|
response 284 of 536:
|
Nov 5 05:11 UTC 2003 |
Ask rane. He's the expert.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 285 of 536:
|
Nov 5 06:13 UTC 2003 |
liberal (adj). 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart;
bountiful. 2. Appropriate or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3.
Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed, as in
religion; inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to
monarchical or aristocratic, as in politics; broad, popular, progressive.
illiberal (adj.). 1. Not liberal; not generous in giving; parsimonious. 2.
Narrow-minded. 3. Lacking breadth of culture; hence, vulgar.
|
tsty
|
|
response 286 of 536:
|
Nov 5 10:14 UTC 2003 |
dean combines teh best of mcgovern and mccarthy in a siingle loser-pac.
how amazing that the far-left-radicals still how so much sway.
cut-n-run and raise taxes .. in your face. what a dolt.
here's to mcdean ... enjoy disintigrating yuor democrats, it's you
yoru alst chance.
,
|
klg
|
|
response 287 of 536:
|
Nov 5 17:10 UTC 2003 |
(It appears that the "enlightened mind" "generosity heart" stuff
doesn't apply when it's Iraqis who're being slaughtered by the 1000s,
huh. Must be only us narrow minded bigots who care about that. Oh,
well.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 288 of 536:
|
Nov 5 17:11 UTC 2003 |
..how amazing that the far-right conservatives still have so much sway...
|
scott
|
|
response 289 of 536:
|
Nov 5 17:31 UTC 2003 |
Re 287: Ah, so that's why you're constantly agitating for a liberation of
the Congolese people, who are suffering from continuing civil war, with
atrocities including torture and gang rape?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 290 of 536:
|
Nov 5 19:24 UTC 2003 |
re286:
*hic*
|
klg
|
|
response 291 of 536:
|
Nov 5 20:23 UTC 2003 |
(Hey. Just found out that was our job. We previously thought that's
what the liberals are for. Who knew?)
|
aaron
|
|
response 292 of 536:
|
Nov 5 21:46 UTC 2003 |
You previously thought that your job was pretending to care about civil
rights when the pretexts for the action you support are all demonstrated
to be false?
|
klg
|
|
response 293 of 536:
|
Nov 6 03:00 UTC 2003 |
Read How-weird's Lips:
"Before he was so flush with cash, Howard Dean was an ardent and
passionate supporter of the matching-fund system," said Jim Jordan,
manager of Kerry's campaign. "Now that his situation has changed, of
course, so have his views on that system. More flip-flops, more
politics of convenience, more politics as usual." (Mark Z. Barabak,
"Dean Taking Poll On Funding Question," Los Angeles Times, 11/5/03)
WAS SO COMMITTED TO PUBLIC FINANCING, WARNED OTHER DEMS NOT TO BACK OUT
March 03: Let There Be No Doubt. "Howard Dean committed Friday to
taking taxpayer dollars to finance his presidential campaign Former
Vermont Gov. Dean said he has already met the requirement." (Sharon
Theimer, "Dean To Take Public Financing For Presidential Campaign," The
Associated Press, 3/7/03)
March 03: Watch Yourself, Dean Tells Dems. "He promised to make it an
issue in the Democratic primaries if any of his rivals decide to skip
public financing "It will be a huge issue," Dean said. "I think most
Democrats believe in campaign finance reform." (Sharon Theimer, "Dean
To Take Public Financing For Presidential Campaign," The Associated
Press, 3/7/03)
June: 03: And If You Don't Believe Me, Read My Letter. "As a candidate
seeking to become eligible to receive Presidential primary matching
funds, I certify and agree to the following provisions [I] will not
incur qualified campaign expenditures in connection with my campaign for
nomination in excess of the expenditure limitations "(FEC Website,
www.fec.gov/finance/2004matching/dean_docs_001.pdf, Accessed 11/5/03)
"Howard Dean is planning to poll his supporters in an unusual online
survey this week about whether he should become the first Democratic
presidential candidate ever to abandon the 30-year-old public-financing
system in the primaries. While Dr. Dean^ s aides said his campaign
would abide by the vote, a draft of his Wednesday speech all but urges
supporters to vote to opt out." (Jodi Wilgoren, "Dean Considers A Plan
To Forgo Public Financing," The New York Times, 11/5/03)
|
goose
|
|
response 294 of 536:
|
Nov 6 03:54 UTC 2003 |
The retirement age for pilots in the US is 60 BTW.
|
polygon
|
|
response 295 of 536:
|
Nov 6 07:02 UTC 2003 |
Re 265. On a national scale, it was not a "close election" in 2000:
the difference in vote totals was some 550,000. The candidates can
"litigate" all they want, but that kind of difference is colossal in
recount terms.
Re 266. The national popular vote has no legal significance now, but it
would if the Constitution were amended to base the awarding of 50
electoral votes on it. So, yup, the list of candidates for president
would be at least partially federalized (though there's obviously a range
of options here).
After I came up with this idea, I discovered that the blue-ribbon
bipartisan commission to study the Electoral College, back in the 1970s,
came up with an even more radical version: TWO electors per state, which
would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. In other
words, a national plurality would be worth 100 electoral votes, out of the
270 needed to win. I prefer the 50 vote plan.
|
richard
|
|
response 296 of 536:
|
Nov 6 07:35 UTC 2003 |
why not simply have it that to be elected president of the United States, one
must win BOTH the electoral college AND the popular vote. If no candidate
wins both, as happened in 2000, you have a runoff one month after the general
election between the two top vote getters. In this case, it would have been
a runoff between gore, the winner of the popular vote, and bush, the winner
of the electoral vote. no other candidates. Someone would have won both
contests in all likelihood.
And klg, you are a hypocrite. you know full well that if bush had won the
popular vote, but lost the electoral vote, and gore was president with a
minority of the actual vote, you would be bellyaching right now. So stop
acting so snobbish. You don't even care that Bush received fewer votes than
his opponent, you just don't care because a democratically elected president
is less important to you than having one who is righteous and conservative.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 297 of 536:
|
Nov 6 12:02 UTC 2003 |
Would the number of votes needed in the Electoral College remain at 270,
if another 50, or 100, electors were added? The current number needed is
a "majority of the whole number of electors appointed." Instead of the
current 538 electors, we'd have either 588, requiring 294 votes, or 638,
requiring 320 votes.
Of course, either number would lower the number of the current electors
needed: 294 minus the 50 'popular' electors is 244, instead of 270.
Adding 100 makes it even smaller, 220.
|
jp2
|
|
response 298 of 536:
|
Nov 6 14:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 299 of 536:
|
Nov 6 17:09 UTC 2003 |
(My, my, Mr. richard. We are crushed!)
A runoff election within one month?? How would Mr. richard assure, for
example, that active duty servicemen outside of the U.S. would have
ample time to receive, execute, and return absentee voter ballots? (Or
would he just as soon disenfranchise them, a la Algore in 2000?)
|
gull
|
|
response 300 of 536:
|
Nov 6 18:54 UTC 2003 |
(It's necessary to strictly follow the rules if it means disenfranchising
regular Florida voters, but it's okay to bend the rules to avoid
disenfrachising overseas servicemen. One of the many things I learned from
watching the Republicans during the 2000 election.)
|
tod
|
|
response 301 of 536:
|
Nov 6 19:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 302 of 536:
|
Nov 6 20:38 UTC 2003 |
Re 296. No, no, let's not schedule additional elections. We ask a lot
of our voters as it is. The focus of national political attention is
on the single November presidential/congressional election date, and
additional elections on other dates will only draw a smaller and less
representative turnout.
Re 297. I had in mind that some of the existing electors would be
redesignated. But, whatever, obviously the math would be a little
different if the number of electors were changed.
Re 298. Why, exactly, would it be "a terrible idea" to federalize the
list of candidates for President of the United States?
I did say that there is a range of options available, including doing
nothing about the candidate list. Doing nothing would require that
the candidates and parties conform their state by state nominations
so that their votes would all "count" correctly on the federal level.
An example of failure to do this is George Wallace's candidacy in 1968.
Because he didn't have a VP nominee in time, his Michigan VP candidate
on the ballot was an unknown placeholder. Strictly speaking, the votes
for Wallace & Placeholder shouldn't be counted in the totals for
Wallace & LeMay.
|
tod
|
|
response 303 of 536:
|
Nov 6 21:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 304 of 536:
|
Nov 6 21:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 305 of 536:
|
Nov 6 21:35 UTC 2003 |
It does? Tell that to the leader of the Republican Party, who also
happens to be the head of the federal government.
|
