USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I made a simple comment...you seem more outraged than I.
But Nebraska moved to proportional representation...not because the Dems took over the govt and were trying to weaken its influence...but because the state bilaterally thought it was best to actually be proportional. Since, Nebraska found that the move was BAD for the state (what a shocker) and is looking to backtrack the move.
So with those learnings...why would a blue state with a rare GOP majority and 20 electoral votes want to limit their electoral votes in all probability to single digits? Part of me would like to see that plan succeed...the electorate would severely punish the party far beyond the 20 votes at stake.
I made a simple comment...you seem more outraged than I.
But Nebraska moved to proportional representation...not because the Dems took over the govt and were trying to weaken its influence...but because the state bilaterally thought it was best to actually be proportional. Since, Nebraska found that the move was BAD for the state (what a shocker) and is looking to backtrack the move.
So with those learnings...why would a blue state with a rare GOP majority and 20 electoral votes want to limit their electoral votes in all probability to single digits? Part of me would like to see that plan succeed...the electorate would severely punish the party far beyond the 20 votes at stake.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I just find it hilarious that you make a post trashing the electoral college... and then in the same post criticize Pennsylvania for for having the temerity to mess with the electoral college. Okay then.
Again, if you want to grouse about their plan, you better have been grousing about Maine, Nebraska, and Colorado before them. I suspect you weren't.
I just find it hilarious that you make a post trashing the electoral college... and then in the same post criticize Pennsylvania for for having the temerity to mess with the electoral college. Okay then.
Again, if you want to grouse about their plan, you better have been grousing about Maine, Nebraska, and Colorado before them. I suspect you weren't.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Happy to say I don't know much about how the first lady pays for things...the dress, or the undies, does the government pay for them or does she?
I can understand there being some allowance for her to buy dresses for official functions...she must have to attend a a few hundred a year between first lady stuff and POTUS stuff. There is a line but I wouldn't want our first lady to be sporting the Khardashian line from Sears.
If she bought a $2k dress everyday it wouldn't be .1% of what we lose in uncollected taxes, government waste and fraud. Check that, if she bought a $2k dress every second it would be $1B a year, medicare fraud is $60B a year so she could buy 60 dresses a second just to equal that number.
If they pay for this stuff themselves, maybe the president will think...it is wrong for people to become indignant over how I spend money that I earned by working my way to this point. Right back at ya mr. president.
Happy to say I don't know much about how the first lady pays for things...the dress, or the undies, does the government pay for them or does she?
I can understand there being some allowance for her to buy dresses for official functions...she must have to attend a a few hundred a year between first lady stuff and POTUS stuff. There is a line but I wouldn't want our first lady to be sporting the Khardashian line from Sears.
If she bought a $2k dress everyday it wouldn't be .1% of what we lose in uncollected taxes, government waste and fraud. Check that, if she bought a $2k dress every second it would be $1B a year, medicare fraud is $60B a year so she could buy 60 dresses a second just to equal that number.
If they pay for this stuff themselves, maybe the president will think...it is wrong for people to become indignant over how I spend money that I earned by working my way to this point. Right back at ya mr. president.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-again-over-GOP-redistricting-map-2080080.php
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/recall18-8g3r7ui-137489833.html
etc.
So in your fantasy land, if Gore had been leading in Florida by a few hundred votes and Bush was asking for recount after recount with differing standards in various precincts that were clearly going to extend past deadlines established by the legislature, there would be no Gore vs. Bush case at SCOTUS? Riiiiight....
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-again-over-GOP-redistricting-map-2080080.php
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/recall18-8g3r7ui-137489833.html
etc.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
(It's actually always a good thing when someone is not a lawyer.)
You see no difference between a recount and an impeachment? It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.
(It's actually always a good thing when someone is not a lawyer.)
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Actually the GOP is doing things a little different than that. Here in Minnesota they passed a voter ID law that was vetoed by the Governor. So, they're now attempting to pass a Constitutional Amendment and get that on the ballot.
They also already have a Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment on the Minnesota ballot this fall.
Legislation done by ballot majority is a horrible way to govern and is NOT what the founding fathers believed in or wanted. Yet, here's the party of the Founding Fathers legislating by Constitutional Amendment.
Actually the GOP is doing things a little different than that. Here in Minnesota they passed a voter ID law that was vetoed by the Governor. So, they're now attempting to pass a Constitutional Amendment and get that on the ballot.
They also already have a Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment on the Minnesota ballot this fall.
Legislation done by ballot majority is a horrible way to govern and is NOT what the founding fathers believed in or wanted. Yet, here's the party of the Founding Fathers legislating by Constitutional Amendment.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
How do you know what I think? You don't even seem to get my point at all.
Its both bad for national democracy and for the representation of Maine, Nebraska and Colorado to go to a proportional delegate system when...and this is the important part...all the other states continue to use a winner take all approach.
The whole country could use a different method of electing a president that is more representative. But some states moving to a proportional approach while other sticking to a winner takes all approach moves us further away from true representation not towards it. I guess I thought that would be clear.
How do you know what I think? You don't even seem to get my point at all.
Its both bad for national democracy and for the representation of Maine, Nebraska and Colorado to go to a proportional delegate system when...and this is the important part...all the other states continue to use a winner take all approach.
The whole country could use a different method of electing a president that is more representative. But some states moving to a proportional approach while other sticking to a winner takes all approach moves us further away from true representation not towards it. I guess I thought that would be clear.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Concur with the lawyer sentiment, of course!
Your original complaint was that "they try to overturn the election in the courts" (post 763). That's not about impeachment (nor a recount) - impeachment doesn't occur in court. Bush vs. Gore is clearly the most prominent example of a Republican suing in court to affect/overturn (depending on your point of view) an election. My point is that both sides use extra-electoral processes and procedures, including the courts, recounts, recalls, etc, to advance their agendas.You see no difference between a recount and an impeachment? It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.
(It's actually always a good thing when someone is not a lawyer.)
Concur with the lawyer sentiment, of course!
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Fair point. I did mean impeachment (after all, it was a response to the typical "Conservative angry. Conservative seek to impeach. Grunt." story (post 759) we always see when things don't go their way. But as you say, that is not a court issue, so the misunderstanding is entirely my fault.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
No worries - to be fair, there do seem to have been quite a lot of cases lately where Republicans *have* turned to the courts (often for stupid or illogical reasons, IMHO), so even if your complaint had been about the courts, you would have had a legitimate beef. I was just playing the "we're no worse than you are" race-to-the-bottom game.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Actually, I don't think you're worse than we are, because you're one of that rare breed, conservatives sans derp, that exist only on college campuses and in European parliaments these days. I do wish you would get a move on and take your party back, though. We flushed most of our morons in the 70's. (Granted, a lot of them washed up on your shore.)
I know. Just so you understand that even though the mistake was mine I do think you're worse than we are.
Actually, I don't think you're worse than we are, because you're one of that rare breed, conservatives sans derp, that exist only on college campuses and in European parliaments these days. I do wish you would get a move on and take your party back, though. We flushed most of our morons in the 70's. (Granted, a lot of them washed up on your shore.)
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Unfortunately this type of issue has more resonance with voters than any rational person would want.
My question of who pays for it was legitimate...I don't know. I don't care for the purpose of commenting on spending the money...but if this is money provided to the FL then this could become an issue we hear about. Joe the Plumber, riding in a tank & expensive haircuts were a big deal, each election seems to have a few of these meaningless issues that both sides spend time and money trying to manipulate. I enjoy seeing how some issues get compartmentalized and others persist...usually not based on the merit of either issue. Sometimes it is misplaced public fascination, sometimes a bad response by one side or the other.
I agree if it is her money she can/should do what she wants. That the reds would make a big deal of it is ironic. Do they really want to make $2k dresses an issue when their leading candidate is worth $250mm? Soon Romney will have to announce he plans to pay his own grocery bill if he wins.
Coming soon, Romney and Obama wrestling over a members only jacket at Goodwill in an attempt to show each is more frugal than the other. Meanwhile, Rome is burning.
Unfortunately this type of issue has more resonance with voters than any rational person would want.
My question of who pays for it was legitimate...I don't know. I don't care for the purpose of commenting on spending the money...but if this is money provided to the FL then this could become an issue we hear about. Joe the Plumber, riding in a tank & expensive haircuts were a big deal, each election seems to have a few of these meaningless issues that both sides spend time and money trying to manipulate. I enjoy seeing how some issues get compartmentalized and others persist...usually not based on the merit of either issue. Sometimes it is misplaced public fascination, sometimes a bad response by one side or the other.
I agree if it is her money she can/should do what she wants. That the reds would make a big deal of it is ironic. Do they really want to make $2k dresses an issue when their leading candidate is worth $250mm? Soon Romney will have to announce he plans to pay his own grocery bill if he wins.
Coming soon, Romney and Obama wrestling over a members only jacket at Goodwill in an attempt to show each is more frugal than the other. Meanwhile, Rome is burning.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Standards which changed as the recount progressed. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is never a good idea.
Standards which changed as the recount progressed. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is never a good idea.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
It is sad you are probably right
That said I am taking Obama whatever Vegas has the odds at. He may be femmy...but he is wirey!
It is sad you are probably right
That said I am taking Obama whatever Vegas has the odds at. He may be femmy...but he is wirey!
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Stupid Republicans are at least matched by stupid, inner city Democrats, don't you think? They'd vote for Pee Wee Herman if the ward bosses or ACORN told them to.
I know. Just so you understand that even though the mistake was mine I do think you're worse than we are.
Actually, I don't think you're worse than we are, because you're one of that rare breed, conservatives sans derp, that exist only on college campuses and in European parliaments these days. I do wish you would get a move on and take your party back, though. We flushed most of our morons in the 70's. (Granted, a lot of them washed up on your shore.)
Stupid Republicans are at least matched by stupid, inner city Democrats, don't you think? They'd vote for Pee Wee Herman if the ward bosses or ACORN told them to.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
Got your pontificating talking points confused, did you Bunky? You're as much of a partisan hack as anyone who posts here. You just dress it up with a patina of phony intellectualism. You and the rest of the uber-libs repeatedly assert how smart you are and how dumb your opponants are. Yet you'll turn on the outrage machine if anyone points out that the core constituency of your party is, uh, intellectually challenged.
Got your pontificating talking points confused, did you Bunky? You're as much of a partisan hack as anyone who posts here. You just dress it up with a patina of phony intellectualism. You and the rest of the uber-libs repeatedly assert how smart you are and how dumb your opponants are. Yet you'll turn on the outrage machine if anyone points out that the core constituency of your party is, uh, intellectually challenged.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
I agree, I & R is a bad way to govern. But to suggest only one side is guilty is more than stupid. You have heard of California, right? Where voters have to wade their way through a welter of ballot initiatives every election. Most of those initiatives are backed, created, supported and funded by liberals. Bottom line, it's a bad way to govern, no matter who's pushing them.
I agree, I & R is a bad way to govern. But to suggest only one side is guilty is more than stupid. You have heard of California, right? Where voters have to wade their way through a welter of ballot initiatives every election. Most of those initiatives are backed, created, supported and funded by liberals. Bottom line, it's a bad way to govern, no matter who's pushing them.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House
pirate and Scoobs bring up something interesting. I think "gotcha" nonsensical headlines and uber partisan ballot initiatives carry a lot less influence than they once did. Its sorta like generals planning for the last war when trying to fight the current one.
If Minny conservatives are trying to put an anti-gay marriage ballot up for a vote during an election year I seriously question that strategy given 1) the general increasing acceptance of gay marriage especially in blue states, and 2) the fact that young voters tend to be the most supportive of this. Since arch-righties are already coming out to vote against Obama, why on Earth would you put up a ballot question that would drive his supporters who's turnout is less assured to the polls in droves? That speaks to me that some people are still living in 1980.
Next, from the Duke riding in his tank to Kerry getting Swiftboated, the Dems had a big problem with handling negative ads. Specifically they tended to wait for the media to sort through the truth without doing it themselves, while the Atwaters and Roves of the world figured out 20 years earlier that the media was lazy and stupid and would move onto the next controversy long before they stopped to verify the truthfulness of an ad. With the steady purge of braindead operatives such as Penn, McAuliff, and Shrum, plus the advance of social media, its a lot harder to pull those tricks off now. Witness Joe the Idiot. Both the Gore and Kerry campaigns would have spent a month trying to win the guy over, only to be flabberagasted when he endorsed McCain the weekend before the election. Instead Obama operatives exposed the guy as a joke and a fraud. Its going to be a lot harder in 2012 for either side to pull of shenanigans like this.
pirate and Scoobs bring up something interesting. I think "gotcha" nonsensical headlines and uber partisan ballot initiatives carry a lot less influence than they once did. Its sorta like generals planning for the last war when trying to fight the current one.
If Minny conservatives are trying to put an anti-gay marriage ballot up for a vote during an election year I seriously question that strategy given 1) the general increasing acceptance of gay marriage especially in blue states, and 2) the fact that young voters tend to be the most supportive of this. Since arch-righties are already coming out to vote against Obama, why on Earth would you put up a ballot question that would drive his supporters who's turnout is less assured to the polls in droves? That speaks to me that some people are still living in 1980.
Next, from the Duke riding in his tank to Kerry getting Swiftboated, the Dems had a big problem with handling negative ads. Specifically they tended to wait for the media to sort through the truth without doing it themselves, while the Atwaters and Roves of the world figured out 20 years earlier that the media was lazy and stupid and would move onto the next controversy long before they stopped to verify the truthfulness of an ad. With the steady purge of braindead operatives such as Penn, McAuliff, and Shrum, plus the advance of social media, its a lot harder to pull those tricks off now. Witness Joe the Idiot. Both the Gore and Kerry campaigns would have spent a month trying to win the guy over, only to be flabberagasted when he endorsed McCain the weekend before the election. Instead Obama operatives exposed the guy as a joke and a fraud. Its going to be a lot harder in 2012 for either side to pull of shenanigans like this.
- Status