|
Geeze
I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. |
Geeze
On 10/5/2018 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. Finally. Looks like she's going to vote yes. But now she's going to spend another half hour or more covering her ass to avoid being condemned by the "meetoo" movement. Oooops ... thought she was finished there for a sec. Nope ... now she's going on and on and on and on. Politicians. Yuck. |
Geeze
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:43:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/5/2018 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. Finally. Looks like she's going to vote yes. But now she's going to spend another half hour or more covering her ass to avoid being condemned by the "meetoo" movement. Oooops ... thought she was finished there for a sec. Nope ... now she's going on and on and on and on. Politicians. Yuck. Do you think this is supposed to influence her vote? https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.4fccaf53000f This is vote tampering, in my opinion. |
Geeze
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:15:23 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:43:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2018 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. Finally. Looks like she's going to vote yes. But now she's going to spend another half hour or more covering her ass to avoid being condemned by the "meetoo" movement. Oooops ... thought she was finished there for a sec. Nope ... now she's going on and on and on and on. Politicians. Yuck. Do you think this is supposed to influence her vote? https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.4fccaf53000f This is vote tampering, in my opinion. The thing that seemed to bother my wife and I the most is we have been fighting for 2 weeks about this and we still have not heard a word about what kind of judge Kavanaugh has been. We assume he must be conservative because Trump picked him but are you saying Trump knows what he is doing? Why aren't we hearing about controversial decisions or statements he made about his philosophy on the issues everyone fights about. We are going to make this decision based on the dumbest thing a 17 year old may or may not have done. Only in America. |
Geeze
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 8:28:39 PM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/5/18 8:13 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:15:23 -0400, John H. wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:43:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2018 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. Finally. Looks like she's going to vote yes. But now she's going to spend another half hour or more covering her ass to avoid being condemned by the "meetoo" movement. Oooops ... thought she was finished there for a sec. Nope ... now she's going on and on and on and on. Politicians. Yuck. Do you think this is supposed to influence her vote? https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.4fccaf53000f This is vote tampering, in my opinion. The thing that seemed to bother my wife and I the most is we have been fighting for 2 weeks about this and we still have not heard a word about what kind of judge Kavanaugh has been. We assume he must be conservative because Trump picked him but are you saying Trump knows what he is doing? Why aren't we hearing about controversial decisions or statements he made about his philosophy on the issues everyone fights about. We are going to make this decision based on the dumbest thing a 17 year old may or may not have done. Only in America. Kavanaugh never sat on the bench as a trial judge. That's utter BS. He most certainly sat on the bench as a trial judge. You are full of ****. You don't know what you are talking about, again. "President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 25, 2003. Democratic senators accused him of being too partisan. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended he be confirmed on a 10–8 vote on May 11, 2006, he was confirmed by the Senate on May 26 by a vote of 57–36, was sworn in June 1. He was the fourth judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed. Kavanaugh began hearing cases on September 11 and had his formal investiture on September 27." He's been a trial judge for what... 12 years? Idiot, harry is. |
Geeze
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/5/18 8:13 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:15:23 -0400, John H. wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:43:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2018 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. Finally. Looks like she's going to vote yes. But now she's going to spend another half hour or more covering her ass to avoid being condemned by the "meetoo" movement. Oooops ... thought she was finished there for a sec. Nope ... now she's going on and on and on and on. Politicians. Yuck. Do you think this is supposed to influence her vote? https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.4fccaf53000f This is vote tampering, in my opinion. The thing that seemed to bother my wife and I the most is we have been fighting for 2 weeks about this and we still have not heard a word about what kind of judge Kavanaugh has been. We assume he must be conservative because Trump picked him but are you saying Trump knows what he is doing? Why aren't we hearing about controversial decisions or statements he made about his philosophy on the issues everyone fights about. We are going to make this decision based on the dumbest thing a 17 year old may or may not have done. Only in America. Kavanaugh never sat on the bench as a trial judge. As for Ms. Collins, apparently she has fired up at least a half dozen possible Dem opponents for 2020. Maine is a tough nut for the Dems to crack, but... There are dozens of decisions from the DC circuit court which would have been far more relevant than this 36 year old groping allegation. Why didn't anyone mention a single one of them? I guess cable news watchers will watch stories of a drunken grope easier than deciding if illegal aliens deserve free abortions. (Azar v. Garza) Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. |
Geeze
On 10/5/18 9:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/5/18 8:13 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:15:23 -0400, John H. wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:43:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2018 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. Finally. Looks like she's going to vote yes. But now she's going to spend another half hour or more covering her ass to avoid being condemned by the "meetoo" movement. Oooops ... thought she was finished there for a sec. Nope ... now she's going on and on and on and on. Politicians. Yuck. Do you think this is supposed to influence her vote? https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.4fccaf53000f This is vote tampering, in my opinion. The thing that seemed to bother my wife and I the most is we have been fighting for 2 weeks about this and we still have not heard a word about what kind of judge Kavanaugh has been. We assume he must be conservative because Trump picked him but are you saying Trump knows what he is doing? Why aren't we hearing about controversial decisions or statements he made about his philosophy on the issues everyone fights about. We are going to make this decision based on the dumbest thing a 17 year old may or may not have done. Only in America. Kavanaugh never sat on the bench as a trial judge. As for Ms. Collins, apparently she has fired up at least a half dozen possible Dem opponents for 2020. Maine is a tough nut for the Dems to crack, but... There are dozens of decisions from the DC circuit court which would have been far more relevant than this 36 year old groping allegation. Why didn't anyone mention a single one of them? I guess cable news watchers will watch stories of a drunken grope easier than deciding if illegal aliens deserve free abortions. (Azar v. Garza) Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. The abortion case I recall involving Kavanaugh had to do with his doing everything he could to prevent an abortion, and nothing, really, to do with the young woman's citizenship status. |
Geeze
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 21:59:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/5/18 9:53 PM, wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/5/18 8:13 PM, wrote: On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:15:23 -0400, John H. wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:43:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2018 3:35 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: I wish Collins would stop flapping her jaw and just announce how she's going to vote. Finally. Looks like she's going to vote yes. But now she's going to spend another half hour or more covering her ass to avoid being condemned by the "meetoo" movement. Oooops ... thought she was finished there for a sec. Nope ... now she's going on and on and on and on. Politicians. Yuck. Do you think this is supposed to influence her vote? https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.4fccaf53000f This is vote tampering, in my opinion. The thing that seemed to bother my wife and I the most is we have been fighting for 2 weeks about this and we still have not heard a word about what kind of judge Kavanaugh has been. We assume he must be conservative because Trump picked him but are you saying Trump knows what he is doing? Why aren't we hearing about controversial decisions or statements he made about his philosophy on the issues everyone fights about. We are going to make this decision based on the dumbest thing a 17 year old may or may not have done. Only in America. Kavanaugh never sat on the bench as a trial judge. As for Ms. Collins, apparently she has fired up at least a half dozen possible Dem opponents for 2020. Maine is a tough nut for the Dems to crack, but... There are dozens of decisions from the DC circuit court which would have been far more relevant than this 36 year old groping allegation. Why didn't anyone mention a single one of them? I guess cable news watchers will watch stories of a drunken grope easier than deciding if illegal aliens deserve free abortions. (Azar v. Garza) Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. The abortion case I recall involving Kavanaugh had to do with his doing everything he could to prevent an abortion, and nothing, really, to do with the young woman's citizenship status. The citizenship status was not part of the case. I agree he did fight the abortion. I would have respected the process more tho if this is what they had have been arguing. The left also had a great gun case where Kavanaugh backed Heller and dissented on an AWB. It is not like they really needed to drag Dr Ford into it but the press can't let a good sex story go and Dianne knows how to work the press, whip up protests and promote other off topic bull****. If they could not have found a way to link Trump Outrage, they would be stuck arguing the usual issues. Guns and abortion. For the record, I agree with Kavanaugh on the guns, disagree on abortion. I think abortion should be a covered service under medicaid, along with any birth control that the FDA approves. |
Geeze
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? |
Geeze
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. |
Geeze
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. The nonsense that is trapped in your mind will remain there so long as you live. I pity you for that. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Geeze
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate. Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government. Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. |
Geeze
On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( |
Geeze
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 7:58:51 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. To you he probably will be called those petty names. I'm sure most level headed people will simply address him for who he is and call him Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. |
Geeze
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:58:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Really? When was the last time anything bad happened to a SCOTUS justice? If I was the democrat party I think I would try to mend fences with this guy before he cements himself as being against everything they are for. Ever since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has placed it's opinions above anything the politicians, the legislature or the president do. |
Geeze
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. It all had to do with the idea that the rural population should not be serfs to the people in the castle (cities). Since that was really still a thing in Europe in recent memory to the framers of the constitution it was important to them. We still have the same divide. The people in the cities still want to impose their will and their cultural standards on people out in the countryside. Thank god we still have the senate and the electoral college or the whole country would be like our fetid cities. It is bad enough that "citiots" move out into the country and bring their big city ideas with them. They move out of the city to "get away from it all", then they want to bring "it all" with them. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. You could say the same thing about West Virginia, the Carolinas or the whole Acela corridor. Is there really any difference between New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island. Connecticut or Massachusetts? It sure looks the same to me. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( A worthy pursuit but the medical community really need to look within. Virtually all of these opioid addictions started on a prescription pad in Dr Feelgood's office. The next addiction they need to look at is benzodiazepines and that is a doctor inflicted disease too. |
Geeze
|
Geeze
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:36:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 1:48 PM, wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. It all had to do with the idea that the rural population should not be serfs to the people in the castle (cities). Since that was really still a thing in Europe in recent memory to the framers of the constitution it was important to them. We still have the same divide. The people in the cities still want to impose their will and their cultural standards on people out in the countryside. Thank god we still have the senate and the electoral college or the whole country would be like our fetid cities. It is bad enough that "citiots" move out into the country and bring their big city ideas with them. They move out of the city to "get away from it all", then they want to bring "it all" with them. I spent years "out there" and traveled extensively in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Iowa, with a few trips to South Dakota and Colorado. As far as I can recall, the only saving graces in terms of civilization were the college towns. I suppose if you are a farmer or rancher, the wide open spaces have appeal. I am damned sure there's nothing I want to "impose" on those places. The guys I knew hated the college vacation breaks because they had to return, if just temporarily, to Nowheresville. I did date a girl in college for a while who was from Western Kansas, but she was up to speed. Her "daddy" was a rancher who owned a really big spread, but when I asked her about it, she said he only raised cattle as a hobby since oil and gas were discovered on his property. The next semester, she transferred to a university in California. You are why god made cities. I am still surprised you live in such a bucolic area. You are a natural for Crystal City or maybe a row house in the unit blocks of East Capital Street. Too bad you weren't in DC in the 70s, you could have scooped one up cheap (but it would have needed work) My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. You could say the same thing about West Virginia, the Carolinas or the whole Acela corridor. Is there really any difference between New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island. Connecticut or Massachusetts? It sure looks the same to me. At least South Carolina has nice beaches. I lived in West Virginia. Blech. Don't like Jersey. Liked New York State, Rhode Island, Connecticut. Ocean water in Massachusetts was too cold for my taste. "Back to the east side of the interstate Ben Stone" ;-) (obscure movie reference) Actually some say the best beaches and perhaps the best fishing is in North Carolina. It just costs more to be there. I am more of a mountain guy when I am tired of the beach ... and that doesn't take long. I lived in Sanibel for a year and I was pretty much "beached" out. Down here I prefer back bay cruising in my boat where the faint hearted fear to go but a nice hike in the mountains, miles from civilization is really nice too. I just don't want to be there in the winter. |
Geeze
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as smart as your wife? |
Geeze
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls for two US Senators per state. It says nothing about population of those states in terms of number of Senators. Think of it this way: The country is called, "The United *States* of America". Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or how backward you and other elitist would like to believe. |
Geeze
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as smart as your wife? When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is because they hate each other. 70 years ago watermen were shooting at each other arguing about fishing rights. After all the river does belong to Maryland, up to the high water line on the Virginia shore. I am not sure it is still true but when I left, Maryland, Virginia and DC were the only 3 jurisdictions in the country that did not share driver's license data. I was revoked in DC and Maryland never heard a word. I knew people revoked in Virginia who just moved across the bridge and got a Maryland license. |
Geeze
On 10/7/18 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls for two US Senators per state.Â* It says nothing about population of those states in terms of number of Senators. Think of it this way:Â* The country is called, "The United *States* of America".Â* Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or how backward you and other elitist would like to believe. Yeah, we both understand the history. That doesn't make it fair to the concept of one man/woman one vote, and it gives too much clout to the empty states. But you Repubs love that. As for this being the "United" states, no way, Jose. |
Geeze
|
Geeze
On 10/7/2018 3:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/7/18 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls for two US Senators per state.Â* It says nothing about population of those states in terms of number of Senators. Think of it this way:Â* The country is called, "The United *States* of America".Â* Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or how backward you and other elitist would like to believe. Yeah, we both understand the history. That doesn't make it fair to the concept of one man/woman one vote, and it gives too much clout to the empty states. But you Repubs love that. As for this being the "United" states, no way, Jose. It's not a "Republican" love or creation. It was written into the Constitution long before there was even a Republican party. I am sure at times when Dems are in control of the White House, House and Senate they "love" it too. One man/woman one vote certainly applies to how the House elections work. |
Geeze
|
Geeze
John H. Wrote in message:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:25:39 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate. Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government. Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as smart as your wife? When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is because they hate each other. 70 years ago watermen were shooting at each other arguing about fishing rights. After all the river does belong to Maryland, up to the high water line on the Virginia shore. I am not sure it is still true but when I left, Maryland, Virginia and DC were the only 3 jurisdictions in the country that did not share driver's license data. I was revoked in DC and Maryland never heard a word. I knew people revoked in Virginia who just moved across the bridge and got a Maryland license. You failed to address the 'smartness' issue. Maybe he doesn't know the answer? -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Geeze
|
Geeze
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:32:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/7/2018 3:26 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/7/18 3:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. The answer to both you and your wife is because the Constitution calls for two US Senators per state.Â* It says nothing about population of those states in terms of number of Senators. Think of it this way:Â* The country is called, "The United *States* of America".Â* Each state is equal in rights regardless of population or how backward you and other elitist would like to believe. Yeah, we both understand the history. That doesn't make it fair to the concept of one man/woman one vote, and it gives too much clout to the empty states. But you Repubs love that. As for this being the "United" states, no way, Jose. It's not a "Republican" love or creation. It was written into the Constitution long before there was even a Republican party. I am sure at times when Dems are in control of the White House, House and Senate they "love" it too. One man/woman one vote certainly applies to how the House elections work. The Senate originally was supposed to be an extension of the state legislatures. In fact, until the 17th amendment the senators were not even elected. The state legislature appointed them. Section 3 (1). The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, [chosen by the legislature thereof,] for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. It was not supposed to be a democratically elected seat at all, it was supposed to be two representatives from the state legislature. The house was the people's chamber and that is why they got the power to tax, spend money, impeach officials and other things you really wanted a consensus of the people for. The Senate was a check on that power. The Senate was the adult group in the room who ratified treaties, tried the impeached and confirmed appointees. |
Geeze
|
Geeze
On 10/7/18 8:17 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:28:12 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/7/18 3:25 PM, wrote: On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as smart as your wife? When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is because they hate each other. Nonsense. How the **** would you know. You are a carpet bagger who has only been there a few weeks. My family lived down the road from you in the 18th century. Thrust me there has always been animosity and the war between the states did not help. I've lived in Virginia and Maryland for more than 40 years. I know a lot of people in both states. I've not encountered any Virginians who "hated" Maryland or Marylanders who hated Virginia. |
Geeze
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:22:30 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/7/18 8:17 PM, wrote: On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:28:12 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/7/18 3:25 PM, wrote: On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as smart as your wife? When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is because they hate each other. Nonsense. How the **** would you know. You are a carpet bagger who has only been there a few weeks. My family lived down the road from you in the 18th century. Thrust me there has always been animosity and the war between the states did not help. I've lived in Virginia and Maryland for more than 40 years. I know a lot of people in both states. I've not encountered any Virginians who "hated" Maryland or Marylanders who hated Virginia. They must all be from Connecticut ;-) I will admit the Wilson Bridge did create more interaction and newer generations forget. In the 50s, Virginia was "over there, where those people lived". You could climb a tree and see the Masonic Temple in SE DC or near in PG. When you got down in Southern Maryland a little farther it was far more pronounced with watermen arguing over who 'se fish they were. |
Geeze
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:22:30 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/7/18 8:17 PM, wrote: On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:28:12 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/7/18 3:25 PM, wrote: On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as smart as your wife? When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is because they hate each other. Nonsense. How the **** would you know. You are a carpet bagger who has only been there a few weeks. My family lived down the road from you in the 18th century. Thrust me there has always been animosity and the war between the states did not help. I've lived in Virginia and Maryland for more than 40 years. I know a lot of people in both states. I've not encountered any Virginians who "hated" Maryland or Marylanders who hated Virginia. There is at least one Virginian who doesn't think much of one Marylander. |
Geeze
On 10/7/18 10:31 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:22:30 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/7/18 8:17 PM, wrote: On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:28:12 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/7/18 3:25 PM, wrote: On Sun, 07 Oct 2018 14:35:53 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:52:20 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/6/2018 8:58 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/6/18 7:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:28:36 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: Oh, the investigations and revelations about Kavanaugh will continue. Maybe by a few but once the final vote is taken today and Kavanaugh is very likely confirmed most Dems will pull in their horns on this and crank their gunsights onto a new subject .... like Trump's father's tax returns from 60 years ago. Mid terms are coming up, don'cha know? Kavanaugh will always be known as "Beer Kavanaugh," or "Sex Offender Kavanaugh," or, worse, "Trump's Boy Kavanaugh." At some point, he will have to pay the piper. Not directly related (to Kavanaugh) but I suppressed my gag reflexes last night and watched Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC deliver a lecture on the structure of our government with particular attention to the Senate.Â* Citing his vast experience as an aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan he criticized the founding fathers as being "wrong" in the structure of government.Â* Much like Hillary, he said the founding fathers assumed the general population were too "stupid" to vote directly on the issues and there fore created the representative form of government with the chosen few ruling. Speaking of "representative," on the way home from the airport yesterday, my wife was commenting on the beauty of some few parts of North and South Dakota and Wyoming, and also how desolate and flat and ugly some parts of those states were, and on the general scarcity of population, and thought it was weird for those lightly populated states each to have two U.S. Senators. So, I looked up population by state. She has a point in terms of "one man or woman, one vote." That argument kind of works for the House, but not the Senate. North and South Dakota and Wyoming each has a population of less than a million. Wyoming's is less than 600,000. Yet each of those states is represented in the Senate with two U.S. Senators. So, each 500,000 persons or less is represented by a U.S. Senator. Same goes for Vermont, Alaska, Delaware. California also has two U.S. Senators, and a population of 40 million. Seems to me that to be more representationally fair, not that fairness matters, states with less than a million people should only have one U.S. Senator. My wife also commented that she really didn't know why North and South Dakota were two separate states. Ironically, that was my comment more than 50 years ago when I visited both states with a college buddy who lived in Vermillion, South Dakota. There's nothing on which to differentiate them. She did have well-attended seminars for her presentations on opioids. Damned drugs are a big problem everywhere. :( I wonder why any two states (or more) bordering each other are separate states? Does that make me as smart as your wife? When you are talking about states like Maryland and Virginia, it is because they hate each other. Nonsense. How the **** would you know. You are a carpet bagger who has only been there a few weeks. My family lived down the road from you in the 18th century. Thrust me there has always been animosity and the war between the states did not help. I've lived in Virginia and Maryland for more than 40 years. I know a lot of people in both states. I've not encountered any Virginians who "hated" Maryland or Marylanders who hated Virginia. They must all be from Connecticut ;-) I will admit the Wilson Bridge did create more interaction and newer generations forget. In the 50s, Virginia was "over there, where those people lived". You could climb a tree and see the Masonic Temple in SE DC or near in PG. When you got down in Southern Maryland a little farther it was far more pronounced with watermen arguing over who 'se fish they were. There aren't enough serious watermen these days to field a lacrosse league. |
Geeze
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:45:08 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/7/18 10:31 PM, wrote: They must all be from Connecticut ;-) I will admit the Wilson Bridge did create more interaction and newer generations forget. In the 50s, Virginia was "over there, where those people lived". You could climb a tree and see the Masonic Temple in SE DC or near in PG. When you got down in Southern Maryland a little farther it was far more pronounced with watermen arguing over who 'se fish they were. There aren't enough serious watermen these days to field a lacrosse league. There are as many as the state will allow with a pretty long waiting list. I would not be surprised if there were far more than there were 100 years ago. You also have exponentially more recreational fishers competing for the resource. The word I am hearing is they are catching more crabs than they can find people to pick. That is truly a job Americans don't want to do. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com