pop

Thank you! That was hilarious!!!! 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

No wonder her husband cheated on her. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

This thread of posts is specifically focused on the EC. We can make anoother post to cover the rest of the pieces. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Not illegal as long as you don't go past the security checkpoint. It's legal to travel with a gun in the baggage hold, and you have to take it to the check-in counter, open the case, and show that it is unloaded. All perfectly routine. In this case her gun was loaded --- "ANN ARBOR -- Charges will not be filed against a district court judge who was accused of taking a loaded gun to a Detroit Metropolitan Airport checkpoint this summer. " 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Here is an example that I like. I saw this in an interview with him on CNN. Ron Paul voted against the government providing the Congressional Medal of Freedom for Rosa Parks. Out of 400+ voters he was the only one to vote against it. He mentioned this was one of the hardest decisions he ever made. He then explained why. He does not beleive that the tax payers need to pay for this medal. Instead he suggested while voting to have all voters present to throw $100 each to cover the cost of the medal. Of course no one did. In the end his decision was based on what he believes is appropriate for tax payers to pay for. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

I think this is his only option. There is no way he gets the Rep nomination. What I predict he will do is run on a third party ticket as either a Libertarian or an Independent. I also predict that we will have a suprise outcome. This is the first time in history of the world that the internet is being utilized as a means of campaigning and for grass roots movements specifically focused on this 2008 presidential election. Some candidates are doing a great job taking advantage of it. I also predict that we will see a huge turn out of young voters this time. Why...2 reasons - 1. internet and 2. young people are quite fed up with the current administration, and being young they are more driven to make change. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

That's not the case, and that's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that I already know who gets my vote before I cast it (TX and CA). Whether the person I voted for wins or not is not the issue. The issue is that the way the current EC is set up it creates a situation where I know who will win this state. I just dont want to know who will win beore I vote. Does that make more sense? 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

I aint voting for ANY presidential candidate from Texas..... look what has come out of there so far in the way of "presidents" Amazon, you wouldnt vote for me if I ran? Dont worry I cant legally run in this country....I wasnt born here. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

What I like about him is the idea of less government. When he says he will cut spending I actually believe him. We align well in our ideals regarding USA currently playing world police. I dont agree with him on abortion. I think abortion is a choice, but I also dont find that issue to be a big deal for me. Pulling out of Iraq is a good idea. I think he would actually do it rather then flap his gums about it. He mentiones that currently our president has to much power. I agree. Less government means less presidential power, and that's a good thing. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

You are absolutly correct in that statement. The EC as it is set up today worked for our founding fathers, but the world has changed dramatically since then, and so has the way we live our lives. Today is not the same as it was in the 1700's. As a result, we need to adapt our current voting practices. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

That I agree with. However when we invade other countries, we do not spread the word of a representative republic. We spread the word of democracy. And this is where I have the issue with the way thew current EC works. We claim democracy, but we do not vote in a democratic fashion. Edited: I am adding this to elaborate on voting in a "democratic fashion". When I stand in line to vote be it in CA or in TX (these are the only 2 states I have any experience voting in, so I speak only from that experience)...if I am voting in a "democratic fashion" I will NOT know who is going to win my state. Currently before I ever cast my vote I already know the result. That's not democracy or even a representative republic...not in this case. Now when we get the opportunity to vote at any other level of government we get to do it in a "democratic fashion". That shuold be the standrad for national elections as well. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Wrong - just because your guy didn't get the most votes does NOT mean that "your vote didn't count". This is a common misperception of those that don't understand how the electoral college works. Recewntl California proposed to change the way they dish out the EC votes, and I completely agree wih this way of thinking, but only if EVERY state did this. California proposed the following. If for example 60% of the CA population votes Rep. then 60% of EC votes go to the Rep's. This is the fair way to do it...but every state has to do it that way. And yes I do not beleive in most sates my vote would count. In the 2008 election even if I vote for Purple Barney, the Rep. will still get that vote. So how does my vote count again in Texas? 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

There is an issue of agricultural water in most of the non-populous states. Even in the populous states, but not in the population centers. There are some issues that affect everyone, like gas prices, health care, etc. That's nice, but what matters in the breadbasket is WATER. What the hell does megamart shopper care about whether the water supply is problematic? What about the electric grid? You'll find Giuliani announcing his candidacy at the World Agricultural Expo in Tulare, California with an EC (which he did). In the popular vote, he'd announce his candidacy at the Academ Awards. The population centers care not about blight. 50 percent of the country (not by population) DOES care. And the population centers WILL care if the fit hits the shan. The POTUS, in order to win, MUST consider an issue like agricultural water to get the votes to win. IN a popular vote, he couldn't give a rat's ass. In Texas the EC has insured the Rep get my vote whether I like it or not. I do not see how in the age of technology and ease of communication the EC is a good idea. It makes my vote not matter...and if this is the case, then I do not live in a democratic country. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Correct! Wrong. It's where the popular vote would fail. What happens when the popular vote is involved? You focus your campaign on states with ports - the population centers. You neglect "fly over country." New York, Cali, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Florida. THose are the big dogs, bro. That's where all the people are. You campaign not in Nebraska, where people are spread out. You campaign in Manhattan, Long Island, LA, San Jose, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago. THOSE are where you can get your message across efficiently to a large group of people. So you lose 100k votes in Montana by never campaigning there. BIG FREAKING DEAL. Maybe you'll take four hours to stop in St. Louis between campaigns in LA and Philly/NYC. Maybe a swing up to Chicago. But you'll never consider a stop by Minot. It just isn't worth it. And all of your pograms will be for the benefit of the coasts and ports, at the expense of "middle America." Afer all, "middle America" won't get you elected. If its about campaigning then I say this. We live in the age of newspapers, magazines, home phones, cell phones, computers, internet, satellite, TV, email, slow mail...etc. If its about getting the message out to the people, well the platform is there. Everyone has the opportunity to watch televised debates and campaigning, even in Nebraska. Not to mention the internet again.....they now have that in every state (thanks to Al Gore

Well, I am incredibly politically incorrect. That makes me somewhat Texan:). 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

It's no suprise we cant get more than half the country to vote. Our vote doesnt count. Yours didnt. And neither did mine while I lived in Texas, but it did while living in California. How weird. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

In a national election its not about Wyoming, or Texas, or Rhode Island. Its about the people of United States of America...the wholle country as one. It's about what happens nationally, and this is where the EC fails. When it does become about individual states, then we hold state elections. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

That aricle lost me right about here "So who would want to abolish the Electoral College if it tears the country apart? The same people who want to do away with ALL states' rights." Are you kidding me? Do away with state rights? That wouldnt make any sense. However, when voting for the president we are voting for a national leader, not a state leader. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

I have lived in 2 states in the USA. They are Texas and California. I also had a chance to vote in both. However, no matter who I personally voted for we all know what the outcome is for those 2 states. Kinda sucks to feel like my vote doesnt count. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Getting rid of the electoral college would be quite tricky. If we went to a system where the nationwide popular vote determined the presidency, we would also have to have a uniform, nationwide, system for determining just who is eligible to vote, how votes are counted, how election rules are enforced, etc. If you are going to add vote totals in, say, Florida and California, etc., you have to be sure that a vote in Florida means exactly the same thing as a vote in California. The rules for voting have to be exactly the same nationwide. This would mean that the federal government would have to get directly involved in running elections in a way they are not involved right now. Do we really want to do that? We are voting for a national leader. This shuold definitely be in the hands of the feds. You just stated "we would also have to have a uniform, nationwide, system for determining just who is eligible to vote, how votes are counted, how election rules are enforced, etc. If you are going to add vote totals in, say, Florida and California, etc., you have to be sure that a vote in Florida means exactly the same thing as a vote in California. The rules for voting have to be exactly the same nationwide." This is exactly how it shuold be. We are all equal here, and each personas vote should equal to 1. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Einstein said that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus even after we die our energy lives on. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

I am only talking about having the opportunity to directly vote for the leaders, rather than running a chance of having the candidates influencing the EC voters, and creating the opportunity for EC voters to vote based on personal gain rather than peoples' say. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

I hope not. It works exactly as designed as I hope it will for genreations to come When you have a situation where you clearly have a larger number of the population voting one way, meaning the public has spoken, but the EC votes cause a different outcome from what the people want, then we a faulty system. i am quoting wikipedia here, and while wikipedia is not always a good source for info, in this case it states the truth: "Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body. The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership whose thinking may not be considered. When applied on a national scale, such as the election of a country's leader, the popular vote can on occasion run counter to the electoral college's vote," What this says is that the EC voter gets to vote for anyone they please no matter even if the majority of people voted opposite of his/her final vote. I'd like to see real democracy in this country where we get to vote for the person in office, rather than voting for the person who might vote the way you want them to. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

The average voter also doesn't have any direct say in the issue... The average voter doesnt have any direct say in voting for a president either, which has proven faulty before. Completely of topic, but we need to get rid of the electoral college. 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

And how is your genitalia? I've had no complaints!