Go vote tomorrow

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    An argument that goes "Socialists spend peoples money until it runs out, hence governments who spend money until it runs out are Socialist" is a logical fallacy.

    You may think that by design Socialist countries - whatever you mean by the term - is less fiscally responsible. Since you called Denmark a Socialist country, and Denmark is way more fiscaly responsibel than the US and has been for the past 60 years, your argument falls flat on the ground.

    And again, the "Socialist" country Denmark has had - for its size - considerable involvement in every major conflict the past 20 years. Balkan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There is no freeriding in this "Socialist" country. Why do you think that the NATO secretary general is a Dane?


    USA per capita defense spending = $2141. Denmark per capita defense spending = $804

    This despite Denmark having a greater per capita income.

    Easier to be fiscally responsible when you let the US pay for your defense, eh?


  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to Neal Page's comment:

    I don't disagree. But, you driving to vote for Johnson is also a waste.  Thst was my point. My vote vs yours aren't any different.

    Address the electoral college flaw and then we can talk, dude.

    And what is that electoral college flaw junior? Can't wait to hear this one.

    What is the flaw? Are you kidding me?  If you have a polarization (at its peak right now) of two political parties and the electoral college count trumps the popular vote, all you have to to do is win specific states.

    As PatsEng just said above "my vote doesn't count" and that's because we know Obama coasts in MA, just like we know Romney coasts in the South.

    You're mocking me like I don't know what I am talking about, yet I do.   It's very clear by you challenging me on this concept, you actualy have NO CLUE, so I am glad I can help you learn, old man.

    See, you follow me around, all insecure because I am smarter than you, and you look for ways to try to gain leverage back.

    Well, you didn't here and likely won't anywhere. The electoral college was a concept that was based on poulation of states for proper representation.......populations like 200 years ago!!!

    How and why should that apply in 2012? It's ludicrous. The whole point of voting is to make sure each INDIVIDUAL's vote COUNTS.  Why should 1 or 2 states decide a nationa election?

    We invented Democracy yet we don't have this part right? It's comical and sad at the same time.

    Capiche? I apoligize to the board for my tone, but if anyone knows Babe and me here, they know what he's looking to do with his condescening initiating tone right there. It's impossible for him to believe someone 25 his junior is more intelligent than he is. lol


    Let me explain for you junior.

    The EC is a brilliant system as is the entire structure of our government the founding fathers left us. It helps defend smaller population states from the larger ones. It is the same principle as the 2 senators per state no matter the population (and taken from that directly along with the reps who are assigned based on population).

    If you went by popular vote, circumstances could arise where a total of 9 states could decide the election (the 9 largest states comprise a bit more than half the population). No 9 states could provide the 270 electoral votes to elect a President. Just because that isn't the current circumstance does not mean it could never happen.


    California has more people than the 21 least populated states combined. Of those 21 states 7 states have 3 EC votes, 5 have 4, 3 have 5, 6 have 6. That's 21 states with 92 total EC votes compared to California's 55 - though combined they have less population.

    Because of this, you will never ever ever get 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment to change to a strictly popular vote. They would be undermining their influence by a considerable degree.


    I don't follow you around junior. You just post a lot of incorrect things.

    Please explain how the Electoral College "protects states" when we see voter fraud, polls closing early and other sneaky manipulations?

    Also, how on earth can can a concocted system, while originally a good one, trump someone's vote based on WHERE they're located in a national election?

    How brain dead are you? My god, Grampa.  Did you just say only 9 states control an election via a popular vote, when the TRUTH is, our last 4 national elections alone prove this to be unequivocally false?

    The rest of the world is laughing at us as we invented Democracy but now use some outdated system to explain why it sitll applies today to pretend it supersedes the actual human voting.  LMAO

    It's broken! Get rid of it!  Sort of like the shotgun spread offense agaisnt good Ds.  lol

    I called every single state last night, minus the surprise in VA, including predicting that Obama would take the popular vote and blow right by Guy Smiley once Cali's entire vote count came in. You know why I sat back and talked nervous Obama people off a ledge saying just watch, Obama will win both the electoral and the popular.  You know who I know? Because I know what states he has to win to get the Electoral votes in an election this close.

    Why do you think each candidate spent the most money in the swing states?  Are you this dumb? Why is one American in Ohio more important than another in Montana?

    It's so simple. The candidates only have to go to specific states to campaign, it makes it easier to TAKE campaign funding and it makes it too easy to manipulate the process.  Get it?

    With population shifts in this country and an outdated principle in itself, the Electoral College isn't needed whatsoever. It's only purpose was to project a fair respresentation base on approx state population when we had 13 colonies here, for chrissakes. That waa 200 years ago! 

    This should have been stopped decades, if not a century ago once all 50 states had been established.

    Why on earth should a primitive system that was devised with good intention originally for protection of colonies, remain in tact today when it clearly confounds our already sketchy bought and paid for elections?

    You have the common sense of an ant.  I cannot even believe that you think what you wrote above as to why it's a "great system" and that explanation makes sense whatsoever.

    "Undermining their influenece"? What does that even mean? You just write rhetoric and a bunch of odd premises string together to sound intelligent, but you are an unherladed moron on this topic and the Brady shotgun spread discussions.


    If you're going to disagree, please state a clear case and have it make sense! What you just wrote doesn't make sense. If I live in Idaho or Georgia, my 1 human vote as a citizen should not be trumped by some outdated, broken system.

    Period. I can't even believe you actually have a job. 


    What about this electoral college system is so hard for you to grasp junior?

    What do you not understand about - the least populated 21 states having collectively 96 electoral votes compared to the more populated than them (combined) single state "California" having 55 - makes it undesirable for the 21 states to go to a popular vote?

    Why in the world would they want to give up a 1.75/1 elective effect for a 1/1 elective effect?

    Let's try this basic approach. Regarding changing that system.....




    Now you may be dumb as a stump, but the people/legislators of the bottom 2/3 populated states aren't. And they're not going to reduce their elective effect because a stooge like you or some Europeans thinks it's "antiquated".

    But you are right about one thing. That is: You are equally right on both subjects, namely: the electoral college and the shotgun spread.

    It always is a pleasure to prove what a tool you are junior. Especially since you tout your intelligence so much. LMAO@U

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    Well, we all voted.  The politicians can now go back to what they normally do..  only care for themselves, their special interests and their party lines.  They said what they needed to say to get elected and their ears now go deaf on what the American people REALLY want:  reign in government spending which in turn reduces the need for more tax revenue plus solutions, solutions, solutions that WORK!

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Well, we all voted.  The politicians can now go back to what they normally do..  only care for themselves, their special interests and their party lines.  They said what they needed to say to get elected and their ears now go deaf on what the American people REALLY want:  reign in government spending which in turn reduces the need for more tax revenue plus solutions, solutions, solutions that WORK!

    The elite remain in charge and the result of centuries of revolution and attempts at equity are slowly eroded. Well, maybe not so slowly.

    And the funniest part is we the people give them trillions to bailout their gambling habit when the roll of the dice didn't go their way. Such a deal!


  5. This post has been removed.

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    There was a time when people avoided discussing religion or politics in public. I pine for those days. Nowadays, everyone seems comfortable shoving their views in each other's faces. A little humility would go a long way; it starts with the humble belief that we don't have all the answers and that listening is more educational than talking.


    Longing for the days of Bush/Cheney?

  7. This post has been removed.

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    RUSTY.... you are talking with out facts...

       1.OBAMA thew our Western EUROPE missile shield under the bus to curry favor with Vladimir, who he promised to be more flexible after he got re-elected. Flexible at AMERICA'S expense.

        2.OBAMA/BIDEN failed to get a Status of Forces agreement in Iraq and is losing the peace that the Armed FORCES won.

        3. ISRAEL is looking for a new Moses to lead them out of bondage since that is where Obama has consigned with his comments about boundries.

        4. Your other comments are all ad hominums.

        5. OBAMA has neither the Credentials, Courage, or Conscience to be President. 

         6. As for leadership ability, he has none. He could not lead me thru a Chinese cat house with a 100 lb bag of rice. Witness that he appointed Simpson/Bowles and then walked away from it.

         7. Obama submitted two budgets to the Senate and got zero votes them from Dems and Republicans.

         8. I'LL allow that OBAMA did one thing that I thought was impossible. He made Carter look good.

        FYI .. I am a Fiscal Conservative as is the Tea Party. I've wasted too much time responding to a man who should know better. Especially since I'm one fingered typist. You should stick to football where you seem to have some knowledge.   

    This is like a hilariously bad collection of Faux News talking points.  I don't even know where to begin.

    1. You have literally no idea what flexibility even means.  Believe it or not other countries don't like it when we just do whatever the f uck we want and put missiles in their back yard.  The Russians are on record saying if we don't come to an agreement they will blow up the damn shield and you think the President should just flip the bird and move on.  Brilliant.  This is even ignoring the fact that Iran is nowhere near even having a dam nuclear weapon let alone having the dam capability to launch it halfway around the world.

    2. Do you even know what a Status of Forces agreement is?  The one Bush signed before leaving office specifically gave the Iraqi government the final word on whether or not we leave troops there and when we were supposed to withdraw.  We simply honored the agreement Bush signed.

    3.  I guess you missed the part where our intelligence agencies have collaborated enormously (including the development of the cyberattack to slow down Iranian nuclear research) or that we just finished running the biggest joint military exercises in history.  Oh man we are really leaving Israel out to dry.

    4. This isn't a fact.

    5. This isn't a fact.

    6. The first part is not a fact.  The part about Bowles-Simpson is a laughable display of ignorance.  Bowles and Simpson came up with a plan.  If it was approved by the commission made up of 18 members of congress (from both the House and Senate) then it immediately passed Congress would go straight to the President to sign (this got around the filibuster).  The plan was not approved by the commission so there literally was no agreement to sign.  And why did it fail?  Because Paul Ryan and the rest of the conservative members of the House refused to vote for it because it included revenue increases.  How do I know Obama would have signed it?  Because he offered Republicans an even sweeter deal with significantly less revenue increases during the debt ceiling negotiations and they rejected that too.  Obama did not walk away from Simpson Bowles.  Republicans killed it before it could even get off the ground because they are all beholden to Grover A$$hat.

    7.  When an entire political party decides that no compromises can be made on the revenue side of the budget then it is kind of hard to pass a budget isn't it.  Obama didn't submit budgets because he recognized correctly that it was a waste of time.  Republicans would reject any deal as they have during his entire first term.  Democrats were cowards and recognized the budgets had no chance of passing so they covered their a$$es and didn't vote for it so they couldn't be attacked based on any of its contents.

    8. This isn't a fact.


    It's f'ing remarkable to read all of this bs about how Obama isn't a "good leader" because he didn't bring everyone together in Washington.  It wasn't for a lack of trying.  His health care bill was a Republican idea.  The individual mandate was originally the creation of the highly conservative Heritage Foundation Think Tank.  IT WAS F'ING IMPLEMENTED AT THE STATE LEVEL BY A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR WHO JUST RAN FOR PRESIDENT.  In his most generous offer to Republicans during the debt limit negotations he offered cuts to both Social Security and Medicare in exchange for less than half of the revenue that would have been raised by Simpson-Bowles.  Bipartisanship "failed" because Republicans have decided that they were more concerned with increasing their own power than solving the country's problems as evidenced by their strategy to oppose virtually every piece of legislation put forth by Obama (even if they supported it in the past) and then blame the gridlock on him.  Obama bent over backwards to offer them sweetheart deals agaisnt the wishes of the liberals in his party despite what they may tell you on Fox.


  9. This post has been removed.

  10. This post has been removed.

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheTinMan. Show TheTinMan's posts

    Re: Go vote tomorrow



    That's "capisce", if you're being polite, otherwise it's "capisci".