Signs that a collapse is under way.

[dagnabit]

He probably heard you express some republican like views and therefore makes the assumption you're republican. See that's the very thing the powers that be want us doing. Jumping to wrong conclusions and treating each other as the enemy. This plays right into their efforts to distract us while lady liberty gets raped in the back room.

everyone who does not subscribe to his distorted views is a tea bagger.

have you not ever read DB before?

 

[HempKat]

huh?
im just pointing out we do not live in a democracy...
luckily so or it would be majority rule against the minorities.

we would NEVER see glbtg rights!!
but it's not left solely up to a majority of voters.

No it would not be because in democracy the minority isn't a particular group or class of people it's the people that lost the election. Which would be a hodgepodge of the types of minorities you're talking about just as the majority would also be a hodgepodge of various minorities.

See your point is only valid if all members of each of the various groups we call minorities voted exactly the same. Unfortunately for you and the point you try to make, they do not.

Do you think all Black people voted for Obama? Do you think all women would have voted for Hillary if she won the primary? The minority represented by the results of a given vote is not the same thing as the minorities that need their rights protected.

You seem to criticize DB for playing such word games and yet hypocritically you play the same games when it suits you.

 

[HempKat]

everyone who does not subscribe to his distorted views is a tea bagger.

have you not ever read DB before?

Not only have I read what he posts but we have argued points we disagree on to. I'm not sure I agree he so casually groups people the way you suggest (either agrees with him or is a teabagger) but it seems strange you're so surprised though. The vast majority to argue politics do the same thing. I have some views that some might see as liberal and when I state them some think of me as being a liberal or on the left, I am not. Just as I have some views that are conservative and when I state them some people wrongly assume I'm conservative or on the right.

What's ironic is this is us vs them but most of us are looking at the wrong people to be the them. We souldn't be against one another left vs right. We should be united against the real them which would be the politicians and the corporate interests the serve rather then the public will they promise to serve.

When we turn against one another the way we do over these topics we're just being the programed lemmings and sheep they want us to be.

Oh and for what it's worth that post was directed to Spastic Gramps in reference to something someone else said about Spastic Gramps and as such had absolutely nothing at all to do with DB. If you're going to butt in an inject irrelevent points into a discussion at least keep up with what is being said to whom.

 

[Guest 88950]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HempKat again.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO, 2000 wasn't a demonstration of Electoral College ills, it was breakdown of the electoral process in Florida. I say this because SCOTUS determined the winner. Less the EC, Gore may have won election by the national popular-vote. However, at least one FL county shirked it's recount duties, at-least in part succumbing to angry mobs immediately outside their office(s). We found out after the SCOTUS selection that Gore would have won the recount and the national popular-vote.

I agree the EC doesn't necessarily follow the national vote but state counts are based on the popular vote, respectively. This aspect alone makes it less than likely that the national EC result goes against the will of the people. We've had examples of the national, popular vote not jibing with EC. But these examples don't win enough respective state-totals to make an EC difference. McGovern only won his home state but he collected 15% of the national, popular vote.

(wiki) Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Generally (with Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions), each state appoints its electors on a winner-take-all basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President.

I'd personally like to see less/no EC influence but I wouldn't want smaller states to become disenfranchised in the process. That's not to suggest this would happen, just an observation based on pro-EC information.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Oh and for what it's worth that post was directed to Spastic Gramps in reference to something someone else said about Spastic Gramps and as such had absolutely nothing at all to do with DB.

HK was pointing out a hypocritical statement of mine.

 

[dagnabit]

[/B]I'd personally like to see less/no EC influence

i agree here!!
we would have never had W.
not that there would be much difference..

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

everyone who does not subscribe to his distorted views is a tea bagger.

have you not ever read DB before?

I don't recall referencing you as a teabagger. Another poster may have, did you possibly misdirect your complaint?

I have referenced libertarian as you appear to espouse libertarian views. But I won't blame this on the Libertarian party. I just think your reasoning is so politicized you refuse to acknowledge things you personally disagree. I disagree with many aspects of government but it doesn't mean I can pretend certain aspects don't exist.

I rarely take exception to your opinion alone. It's when you make all the collective declarations, example: gay marriage wouldn't be supported by direct democracy. However, you don't wholesale discount opinions nor statistics. That's a start. However, you still discount that which you disagree, IMO sometimes limiting your declarations to guess.

For example, you mentioned constitutional monarchy. It doesn't mean British royalty rules by royal constitution. Closer to the point is the establishment (law) of free-elections (democracy) and that these freely elected lawmakers follow a democratic constitution. It relegates British royalty to figure-head status.

But I did leave you the opportunity to suggest I'm wrong by pointing out royal decree. In familiar fashion, you resorted to personal allegations that didn't take place.

I've stated I think your opinions are whacked and that's often demonstrated by oversimplified absolutes, followed by scrutinous minutia of given rebuttal. Suggesting that reasoning is anything less than sound is something you've done on numerous occasions. Wouldn't want you to appear hypocritical, dag.

 

[dagnabit]

i believe the conversation was concerning religion and you were "surprised" a tea bagger like me held the views i do on that subject...

then i informed you i thought the "tea party" was just another bunch of big government liberals.

 

[dagnabit]

you resorted to personal allegations that didn't take place.

 

[joeuser]

The problem is that the cure to the defect will not be in the best interests of the puppeticians and the people that pull their strings. One big step towards that cure would be the removal of the electoral college. There was a time when this was practical, back when there were no phones and transportation were your feet or a horse and buggy. Due to such things it was more practical to put the final decision of who is elected as President in the hands of the representatives for the sake of expediency. In this day and age were virtually everyone is connected to the internet and one can travel across the nation in hours rather then days or weeks there is no need for the electoral college anymore.

The only reason it still exists is to thwart the will of the people as we saw demonstrated in 2000.

Smart but naive...

The Electoral College was put there to ENSURE that the future leaders of America were agreeable to the current leaders of America. A stacked deck...familiar? They weren't idiots. All this work to give it all away to gullible idiots (present company included) who thought THEY knew what was best for the country? The founders wanted other "founders" running things in the future...the HELL with what the PEOPLE want. IF they wanted the people's wishes to count they'd have said in black and white...the EC will vote as does their states people vote...or some such shit. As it is...they are free to vote as they wish. You don't elect anyone in the presidential race. An elector decided who will win. You ARE wasting your time voting. WHOM are you voting for anyway? A stooge of whatever party you choose? Who the fuck was 0bama? He's nobody...but he DOES work for people...people with power and money...people who made Hillary step aside! She could/should have ripped this punk a new asshole. She held back. My bet, something happens and she runs in '12. Weirder shit happens!

It's ALL rigged...it's ALL fixed. Just accept it and use that knowledge...don't play in a rigged game. Don't even TRY to play.

I do vote...ALWAYS for the independent. I know first hand what bullshit they went through to get on the ballot...you wouldn't believe how hard it is! And, since the EC actually does the voting...they'll NEVER win...NEVER. Churchill or Jesus himself could come to save us...but the final authority IS the EC. And it WAS planned that way irregardless of how hard it is to vote in 1778. That was a convenient excuse. Like terrorism and the patriot act, the war on drugs and the corporate prison system.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

i believe the conversation was concerning religion and you were "surprised" a tea bagger like me held the views i do on that subject...

then i informed you i thought the "tea party" was just another bunch of big government liberals.

I see, not necessarily something I posted but you gathered nonetheless.

Lets take a look at a direct quote that also qualifies as less-than.

...I'd personally like to see less/no EC influence but I wouldn't want smaller states to become disenfranchised in the process.

Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit

I'd personally like to see less/no EC influence

i agree here!!we would have never had W.
not that there would be much difference..

You agree with half the sentence? Isn't that a bit re-contextualized? You're making definitive (a non-definitive) opinion. There's a significant reason I didn't end the rather short sentence where you did.

That's not discounting your agreement. It's just an example of absorbing what I consider limited context.

I disagree with your opinion that the 2000 presidential election was adversely affected by EC. I've previously posted it's my opinion that SCOTUS selected the president after waxing recount(s).

 

[dagnabit]

I see, not necessarily something I posted but you gathered nonetheless.

Lets take a look at a direct quote that also qualifies as less-than.





You agree with half the sentence? Isn't that a bit re-contextualized? You're making definitive (a non-definitive) opinion. There's a significant reason I didn't end the rather short sentence where you did.

That's not discounting your agreement. It's just an example of absorbing what I consider limited context.

I disagree with your opinion that the 2000 presidential election was adversely affected by EC. I've previously posted it's my opinion that SCOTUS selected the president after waxing recount(s).

you seem to miss words..

all that typing because you missed a single word here
you see the context you missed was the one simple little word..

i agree here



you limit the context in your imagination.

as for the posting that you "not necessarily posted" it would be a TOU violation to post one of your many little R+ quips.
at the end of my camel's foot

 

[BrnCow]

Teens massing up and robbing people and businesses...

http://articles.philly.com/2011-06-29/news/29717406_1_maria-teens-mob-assault

 

[BrnCow]

Calling tea party folks "tea baggers" is akin to calling gays "queers"... totally unacceptable....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

you seem to miss words..

all that typing because you missed a single word here
you see the context you missed was the one simple little word..

i agree here



you limit the context in your imagination.

as for the posting that you "not necessarily posted" it would be a TOU violation to post one of your many little R+ quips.
at the end of my camel's foot

Yeah, some of your messaging is a bit opaque, reference the uh, trifecta pic. Try some type of notation that you're re-contextualizing. The word here could be taking multiple ways w/o your particular directive.

More cloudy messaging comes in the from of your pickie. IMO, you'd be more influential if you didn't hide behind your context, especially when pejorative potential exists.

So I tea bagged you in PMs? That's about as vague as your suggestion that JD would hack your computer if you cited your opinions as fact.

Try staying relevant, dag. Very few, if any of the world's problems are solved at ICMag. Try recognizing your opinions often stop at the delivery and others may disagree. The relatively few facts you reference are no different than others' yet you appear to blur the line between fact and opinion.

 

[dagnabit]

Yeah, some of your messaging is a bit opaque, reference the uh, trifecta pic. Try some type of notation that you're re-contextualizing. The word here could be taking multiple ways w/o your particular directive.

More cloudy messaging comes in the from of your pickie. IMO, you'd be more influential if you didn't hide behind your context, especially when pejorative potential exists.

So I tea bagged you in PMs? That's about as vague as your suggestion that JD would hack your computer if you cited your opinions as fact.

Try staying relevant, dag. Very few, if any of the world's problems are solved at ICMag. Try recognizing your opinions often stop at the delivery and others may disagree. The relatively few facts you reference are no different than others' yet you appear to blur the line between fact and opinion.

it must be fun in DB world..

try to remember if someone quotes you partially and says "i agree with you here" it means they agree with you in the statement (portion) quoted...
it's really pretty simple no extra context needed?

lord Xenu bless you LOL

 

[dagnabit]

Try staying relevant, dag. Very few, if any of the world's problems are solved at ICMag. Try recognizing your opinions often stop at the delivery and others may disagree. The relatively few facts you reference are no different than others' yet you appear to blur the line between fact and opinion.

hey pot im kettle...

holly shit you are black too?!?!?!?

think it's from the fire?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If that's your standard then I acknowledge. I'll just demonstrate the same reasoning with one of your posts and see if you likey.

I wouldn't outright reject your hypocritical implications. You just have a way of flipping so many concepts it has the tenancy to water down your collective approach.

Not to mention you rarely fail to take a difference of opinion into personal argument. The better points you make, the less you have to address. Remember the friendly advice you bite too many hooks? I happen to agree.

 

[dagnabit]

Not to mention you rarely fail to take a difference of opinion into personal argument.

nope...
hardly ever bite on your ad hominem, you mistake pointing out dishonest debate tactics as taking umbrage.

i rarely take any of your silly little quips seriously even when you send "yo momma" to my pm box..

i consider you free entertainment most of the time