1
Other Sports (Tiger's Back) / Re: The Royals
« on: June 25, 2011, 09:53:27 AM »
Marching toward that number one overall pick. Just 3.5 back of Houston.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Corporations, businessmen and entrepreneurs, OH MY!
you mean the people pulling the strings? Then. ya. Oh my.
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
So how about Vice Pres? Winner of two rounds of competition picks VP after winning?
We should have two rounds in presidential elections and you should be able to rank your top 2-3 choices.
That's a great idea. We should also eliminate political parties completely.
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
A national campaign stop never be held outside of CA, FL, NY, OH, TX, IL, or a handful of other mostly eastern states. The great plains and mountain west would become completely irrelevant on the national stage.
So the candidates will just completely ignore Salt Lake City, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, etc? That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me. Also, the 2 party system still exists, and I'm sure Iowa will try to stay relevant in the primary elections.
What if we just took an eraser to the electoral college thing?
Terrible Idea, unless you want all our presidents to be elected in New York City and Los Angeles.
That's just poor logic. The electoral college assigns votes based upon population, so New York and Los Angeles are accounted for. The real problem with the system is that if a candidate were to win a state by just one vote, he/she would still get all the votes from the electoral college as if he/she won the state by unanimous decision. The system should be done away with.
First of all, novice, New York CITY and the CITY of Los Angeles don't have electoral college representation...their states do. There are rural people in those states as well (shocking, I know). If we did away with the electoral college, Politicians could select a few, highly populated locations and campaign exclusively in those locations. Politicians are forced to gain support across the entire country, rather than specific regions.
Please, read a book about the electoral college, and stop listening to Al Gore about how bad it is.
Right now, the rural parts of New York and California might as well not even have a vote if they disagree with the majority in the cities of Los Angeles and New York. If you really think these cities would have enough pull to decide elections nationally without the electoral college, it's pretty Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to argue that the rural areas of those states have any say at all with it.
I would rather the rural areas of TWO states have no say than the Rural areas of an entire country.
Who cares what some rural hayseeds think about an issue in the proposed straight election? All I have to do to win an election is hit LA, New York, Chicago, and a few more key cities, promise them cheaper bagels and lower Taxi fees and I have it. Well, I might also need a winning smile, I'll get back to you when I've got that too.
Why should rural votes count for more than city votes? Seems to me all votes should be equal.
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind.He still didn't notice.
What did he miss? Obviously you know nothing about our government. Let me explain it to you. There are three branches. One of them is the Dakota's. This branch is elected to represent both the states, in the North Dakota house, and the population, in the South Dakota House. Then, there is the Washington branch. This is the commander-in-chief, who gets to boss everyone around, but not too much, or the Dakotas can fire his ass. Last but not least, there is the Juneau branch, based in Alaska. These guys are appointed by the Washington branch, and get to tell the Dakotas if the crap they try to pull is legal or not.
Did I miss anything, Sanchez?
I see there's only mocking, no refutation. But please, stay blind.He still didn't notice.
we don't need one dakota let alone two
I love the new Dirty Sanchez run pit.
Let's be honest, our constitution is an antiquated piece of crap. It's like the Ten Commandments. Hey d00ds, do we still need the part about not coveting our neighbors slaves? I mean, it's kind of humiliating that we had, in the guiding rules of our religion, a part about actually owning slaves let alone a rule about not wishing our slaves were as good as our neighbors slaves. But then here come the ten commandment judges with their ten commandment originalism freak outs.
Yes, we need a constitution for the modern man.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand there you have it, folks.Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
China really is fantastically pragmatic. To make this work in the US, we'd have to package it as "principled pragmatism" or something. But African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American companies rough ridin' love doing business with the Chinese specifically because they don't attach moral, ethical, or ideological conditions onto their business deals or trade agreements. Essentially, we're the football team "doing things the right way" and China is Auburn or some other awesome school, except in this scenario Auburn (and USC/Russia) have a veto on the NCAA investigations committee.
This is satanist propaganda in a nutshell. Government by euphemism. "man-caused disasters" "overseas contingency operations" and every other pc bullshit phrase including the divisive hyphenated-Americans.
Did you even watch the video?
Fantastic idea. Great video.
It would be a great idea to revisit the Constitution considering how much the world has changed since it was written:
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/founding_fathers_version_20/
China really is fantastically pragmatic. To make this work in the US, we'd have to package it as "principled pragmatism" or something. But African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American companies rough ridin' love doing business with the Chinese specifically because they don't attach moral, ethical, or ideological conditions onto their business deals or trade agreements. Essentially, we're the football team "doing things the right way" and China is Auburn or some other awesome school, except in this scenario Auburn (and USC/Russia) have a veto on the NCAA investigations committee.
You dont like democracy?
DISCLAIMER: Not Ryan Dunn's
Not that I'd ever rely on any 3 of these for "breaking news" or w/e...but if Fox is the most accurate, albeit ~40% clip, we're so beyond effed it doesn't matter anyway
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/21/is-jon-stewart-correct-that-fo?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29
No, they didn't say Fox was the most accurate. They said their viewers were more 'informed'. That simply means that they can regurgitate more facts.
I'm not surprised. A lot of folks that watch Fox shows are religious in their devotion to the channel and the time slot. Most of my family members that watch Fox News have it on in the background nearly three or four hours a day. While I, conversely, watch an hour of Anderson Cooper and call it good*.
*Except on the weekends when I watch Meet the Press, State of the Union, and GPS.
I've heard it smells bad. Can anyone confirm or deny?