Great Show
 

On 6/11/16 8:58 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 6/11/16 8:11 AM, Tim wrote:
Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius.

You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence.
Hmmm myths do die hard, eh



Obviously you missed the point. Warren's parents told her repeatedly
about her native American ancestry. She believed her parents.

You believed your parents about Jesus, and also you believed the new
testament and others. No real evidence, though, eh?

If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here,
I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere.

For one as well versed in deceit as yourself, I find it odd that you actually believe Warren's
story.


I believe her parents told her that story. Tim and others here believe
in the story of jesus.

Great Show
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.


You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was
never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice.
How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures.



D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How
we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change
again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area
of expertise.


How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen
has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have
helped your critical thinking.

Great Show
 

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states.
This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority
I guess.
I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and
they like the feudal system.

And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best
educated' lists.

It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure
of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to
their level and call it "progressive".

Great Show
 

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:03:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states.
This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority
I guess.
I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and
they like the feudal system.

And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best
educated' lists.

It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure
of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to
their level and call it "progressive".

It's a shame they don't realize in which direction they are 'progressing'.

Great Show
 

On 6/11/16 11:42 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.


You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was
never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice.
How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures.



D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How
we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change
again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area
of expertise.


How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen
has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have
helped your critical thinking.

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

Great Show
 

On 6/11/16 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states.
This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority
I guess.
I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and
they like the feudal system.

And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best
educated' lists.

It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure
of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to
their level and call it "progressive".



Right, because everyone should live in backwater Florida.

Great Show
 

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 6/11/16 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states.
This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority
I guess.
I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and
they like the feudal system.

And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best
educated' lists.

It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure
of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to
their level and call it "progressive".



Right, because everyone should live in backwater Florida.

So you consider the increase in Chicago's murder rate 'progression'?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...2016/82507210/

They're apparently progressing fairly rapidly.

Great Show
 

On 6/11/16 12:40 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 6/11/16 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states.
This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority
I guess.
I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and
they like the feudal system.

And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best
educated' lists.

It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure
of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to
their level and call it "progressive".



Right, because everyone should live in backwater Florida.

So you consider the increase in Chicago's murder rate 'progression'?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...2016/82507210/

They're apparently progressing fairly rapidly.


Still obsessed with Chicago, eh? It's still one of my favorite cities,
along with New York, Boston, Miami, and San Francisco. You're such a
pussy, I'm sure I'll never encounter you there...you're more comfy with
your redneck buds at the blown-out grass "festivals."

Great Show
 

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:32:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

How electors are selected did not change and there is still nothing
that forces the electors to vote for the person they were supposed to.
Plenty of elections have at least one rogue elector. Most recently was
2004 where one idiot from Minnesota voted for Edwards as president and
vice president. In 1988 a West Virginia democrat voted for Bentsen for
president and Dukakis for VP. In 76 Reagan got a vote and he wasn't
even running.

Great Show
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/11/16 11:42 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.


You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was
never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice.
How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures.



D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How
we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change
again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area
of expertise.


How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen
has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have
helped your critical thinking.

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.


The 12th defines how the election goes if not a majority of the votes by
the electors is not reached. Otherwise, has not changed how electors are
chosen, or their duties.