On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:54:27 GMT, James L. Ryan <taliesinsoft@mac.com>
wrote:


Interesting tidbit....Buchanan won almost as many votes in Palm
Springs as he did in the primary there.






JD


"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002

'All I really need to know about Islam, I learned on September 11.'
-Me

'Conservatives believe IN America, liberals believe in and worry about
what other countries SAY about America.'
-Me

"If this really is the worst you've got on George Bush, we're going to
take 49 states."
-Ann Coulter on Democrats Sobbing About Bush's Carrier Landing
Hannity & Colmes 5-7-03

"marengo" <marengo (at) thelink.net (change at to @ to reply)> wrote in
message news:3ef92b6a$1@news.theLink.net...
I too vote independent of party. Usually, that winds up being the Republican
candidate, as they align themselves closer to my beleifs than the Democrats.
As an aside, Jimmy Carter, although considered amongst the worst Presidents,
is now considered one of the best ex-Presidents. While Clinton may be
remembered for the 1st distinction, it's doubtful that he'll acheive the
2nd. I say this for different reasons, neither of which have anything to do
with their party affilliation:
Carter was very well intentioned even if somewhat inept while in office. I
liked him. Clinton, on the other hand, I never did like. Not since his first
campaign. My opinion is that he never has and still doesn't have a shred of
integrity. He probably never will.
I agree with you 100% regarding the pettiness that can occur in these
elections. The kettle *and* the pot are indeed black. It just seems to me
that the Democratic party is often the blacker of the two.

"James L. Ryan" <taliesinsoft@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB1EA42D0079E6FFF0284600@news.earthlin k.net...
I guess I should respond by saying that if Perot hadn't run against Bush Sr.
and Clinton, Bush would have gotten Perot's votes and won *that* election,
but that would be irrelevant, since in that election, Clinton *did* win, and
in this one, Bush Jr. won.

Dune Runner wrote:
The only problem is that Gore *did* get more popular votes than Bush.
The folks who voted for Gore have a reason to be distressed on the basis
of actual numbers. Were it reversed, I can't imagine any other reaction
than what we've already seen, but from Bush supporters who would feel
cheated by one of the hazards of a system two centuries old.

In pre-technological times, the electoral college made some sense. Now,
with virtually instant communications, it doesn't. Particularly since
citizen votes cast in a presidential election aren't cast for the
candidate, but for electors who are not legally bound to vote for the
candidate they ostensibly ran for. It's possible that a candidate could
win the electors from a state and some of them not vote for him. It's
completely up to the electors who they vote for. In practice, it doesn't
happen, but I distantly recall a story that it did once. Could be wrong
about that. But it's another potential pitfall in an archaic system.

The electoral numbers don't reflect popular opinion. It's a legalistic
result rather than one that can claim to represent the wishes of the
majority, however slim.

Legality isn't an issue; neither is validity. It's valid and legal.

Look at Kennedy/Nixon numbers to see another example of close vote
numbers.

I do think it should be decided by direct popular vote.

Pastorio

"Bob Pastorio" wrote:

The only problem with allowing popular vote to decide the outcome is that
those states with the largest populations could easily decide the elections,
leaving the lesser populated states without proper representation by virtue
of their lower numbers. That's why the Electoral College was instituted in
the first place.

Dune Runner wrote:
What have states to do with a national election? States are artificial
boundaries in the case of a country-wide election for national offices.

How are states represented in these elections except by population now?
More people, more electors.

The *areas* of greatest population would have strong influence, just
like they do now but with the removal of one artificial boundary. The
state borders. So the New York metropolitan area would be one "area"
that crossed state lines and reflected more accurately the whole area's
preferences. Pittsburgh metro would extend into Ohio and West Virginia.

The electoral college was instituted because roads were muddy and
communication was slow. That's why they voted long after the popular
election was done.

Pastorio

"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:bd5kse$k8b$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
*all* own guns to protect our liberty against demonic faux-religious idiots
like you who would like to run everyone else's life and tell them how to
live...

p.s. If Jesus were alive today, you'd label him a liberal socialist fag and
would have nothing to do with him .. Unmarried at 33, went about barefoot
with a beard telling everyone to give everything they had to give the poor,
insisted that people pay their fair share of taxes, preached love and
compassion rather than fighting, acceptance rather than being judgemental,
told us to take care of the widows and elderly, etc. If He were walking
the earth in the U.S. today, He'd surely be labeled a liberal by people like
you all right --urging universal healthcare, gun control, higher taxes to
help the needy.

Hmmmm .. now how did the ultra-conservatives ever get the idea that they
somehow have a monopoly on God when they're stingy, judgemental and war
mongers? Gonna be a lot of surprises come Judgement Day. If you read the
Bible, you'll find He even says so.

- a "liberal" Christian

"Bob Pastorio" <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3EF94B61.B78FC5C4@rica.net...
Write Hillary and urge her to propose the Constitutional ammendment she
pledged after Election 2000. You know, the one to get abolish the Electoral
College.

Fat ankles would be the least of her problems.

"marengo" <marengo (at) thelink.net (change at to @ to reply)> wrote in
message news:3ef94c3f$1@news.theLink.net...
Heh, that would take your free choice away now wouldn't it? With ever
increasing regulations and even hate laws attempting to control behavior,
gun laws included, my freedom to practice religion and your freedom to screw
animals are equally threatened. For now we both injoy free choice. What will
change all that is another terrorist mass murder. What Liberals have done to
America in lax immigration laws and open borders may just bring on the thing
you feer most.

He is coming again. Remember the rich man was asked to shed his posessions
and follow Him but chose instead to keep his riches. The rich man was face
to face with the Glory of Christ the King and passed on Salvation. Blessed
is the man who hasn't seen Christ face to face but yet does believe and
Follow Him...and keep his possessions.

It were scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites who felt their power would be lost
if they let the King of the Jews continue to preach. "Demonic faux-religious
idiots" would be the modern label the lost would use, don't you think?

In deed.

Think of how you'll explain your parties lack of natural affection for
Humanity with respect to abortion and apathy toward freeing the Iraqi people
from the Butcher of Baghdad.

It's all about free choice. Have you been choosing your allegiances wisely?
--
CB
"Such is the moral construction of the world that no national crime passes
unpunished in the long run... Were present oppressors to reflect on the same
truth, they would spare to their own countries the penalties on their
present wrongs which will be inflicted on them in future times. The seeds of
hatred and revenge which they [sow] with a large hand will not fail to
produce their fruits in time. Like their brother robbers on the highway,
they suppose the escape of the moment a final escape and deem infamy and
future risk countervailed by present gain."
- Thomas Jefferson, 18th-century American Founding Father, early
19th century U.S. president (letter to Francois de Marbois, 1817)

"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message
news:1l9Ka.5608$lT4.5301@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
How much does it cost for a voter to get registered in the USA? Is it a
one time thing or does a person have to get registered every time there's an
election? I wonder if this is some sort of ploy to keep the poor from
voting?--rb

"James L. Ryan" wrote:
What is the basis in Florida statute, as written, for a revote?
The federal Constitution requires that presidential elections be
held on the day specified by Congress. Election day is fixed by
Congress and not subject to the judicial whim of the Florida
Supreme Court.

David

Hillary has a cat.

Thanks for caring, love ya even though you are brain-dead.

Is everyone in your family as sloooooooooooooooow ?

JHall.

"Bob Pastorio" <pastorio@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3EF88B7F.45A2341B@rica.net...

"Ace (Steve Canyon)" <stevencanyon@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9tijfv8rn5vu3olhh8dqm9q9c126ncncsj@4ax.com...
Well Said

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:12:33 -0400, Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net>
wrote:

ROTFLOL, don't they teach US History in the Jr. Highs any more,
Junior.

Go look up the word "state." See how it's a synonym for "country."
You see, you moron, when the Constitution was written, the USA wasn't
a country at all, it was a collection of countries (states) who formed
a union with each other, not completely unlike the USSR.

To this end, the collective states still retain a large amount of
power instead of the people. It is 3/4 of the states that can ratify
an amendment, not 3/4 of the people. It is majority of the states
representatives in the Senate that is required to pass a bill into
law, and it is the votes in the elected representatives of the states
that is required to elect a President not the votes of the people.

LOL... Get a hold of a good book on the US government. Try
something on a Jr, High level so you can understand it. The number of
members each state has in the EC is equal to the number of members
that state has in both the house of Representatives and the Senate.
Each state's EC members is the number of House members plus two. Now
in the big populous states like California, those two extra votes are
dwarfed by the population-derived votes and divided by the population
are almost insignificant insofar as advancing their power, but in
those smaller states, the two extra votes are very significant, For
instance, in Wyoming, it triples the voting power of the population
based votes.

again... Go for that book...... The reason that they gave each
state the same number of votes in the EC as they had members in
Congress had to do with the same reason that each state has two
members inn the US Senate. It was to make sure that the states with
big population didn't overpower the states with small populations.

But you'll have to live with this system, even though you don't like
it because in order to change it you'll have to convince all those
voters in the least populated states to give up the voting power they
have... LOL



--

Google searching a few things brought up some more
Lochner gems...

"those losses when the current is travelling through
450 km of wires hung up in the air, with a wind moving
them around.."
-Kurt Lochner's theory on DC transmission line reactive
...losses being produced by wind blowing on the conductors..

"You going to trey and pretend that overhead transmission
lines aren't affected non-symmetrically by the prevailing
winds, Porker?"
-Kurt Lochner demonstrating his vast education in physics.

"Ace (Steve Canyon)" wrote:
Um, not quite the whole story. The House of Reps was *specifically*
designed to be in direct proportion to population. That's why we have
the bicameral setup we do in congress. One to represent the populace and
one, ostensibly, to look at the bigger picture.

The EC is directly connected to population. Populous states have more
electors.

The point is that in a national election, the states should have no
place as dividing points. If it's a *national* election (*The* national
election, really. We have no other national election.), the states have
no power and derive no specific benefit from the election, as states.

It's false *power* to say that the states gain or lose power in the
presidential election. The power of the states *is* related to
population. Both the popular vote and elector numbers depend on how many
people voted.

Pastorio

"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:bdbvpb$49o$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
What Liberals have done to
The immigration laws we have now are perfectly fine. There is a lack of
enforcement of those laws that is because of finances, and has nothing to do
with political persuasion. It has to do with poor border patrols. (The
concervative Republicans run Texas, remember?) I assume you are alluding
to *illegal* immigrants entering the U.S. If not, then anyone else has
every bit as much right to be here as you -- unless you are a pure blooded
American Indian native. Otherwise, if you don't like it, you have the
freedom to leave and move to a more fascist county. Typical self-serving
cultra-onservative drivel again, assuming that their "rights" take
precedence over everyone elses.

And what I fear most is having someone like you telling me how to live my
life and what I can and cannot do, when you can't run your own.

I am Christian by the way. With your attitude and posturing, I doubt very
much that you are - you shroud yourself in religious words but don't show
compassion for your brothers - just like the Pharisees ... and the
moneychangers that Jesus drove out of the Temple.

"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:bdbvpb$49o$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Keep readig. He also said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gate of Heaven.
Lots of people going to be surprised where they end up when the wheat is
separated from the tares.

but a really soft pussy, eh ?

JHall.

"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message news:<bdbvpb$49o$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...


Keep on talkin' big boys n girls....judgement day is a helluva lot
closer than you think, or would like to know. Yet, soon you
definitely will. Free choice indeed.

Sermon
http://undergroundrecords.org/sermon/

"Dune Runner" <dr@ayowell.com> wrote in message news:<SiaKa.5750$lT4.1908@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com> ...
The talk show guy here used to say she has her legs on upside down.