Corzine - your votes belong to me....

[FDNYDANO18]

Originally Posted by IrocRob

What is it you don't like? The idea of a popular vote or the methods that
must be used to achieve one? So far there are only two governors who have
signed this legislation, and it will only take effect if a majority is reached.

We have methods of communication that are so far beyond what the
founding fathers had to work with; so much so that the electoral college
is no longer a required part of the process. Do I think that an ammendment
should be passed to change to a popular vote model? Yes, I do. I also think
that you should be REQUIRED to vote; but that's another story.

This legislation will never have any direct impact on the general election,
it is simply the first step towards a popular vote model.

Which according to the U S Constitution requires a constitutional amendment. Ammendments to the Constitution are difficult to achieve for that very reason....remember...these are the same polititians who dont want to require ID to vote...harder to cheat that way

Big Dog and Pony Show

[CBRBob]

Originally Posted by jcblitz

I don't know much about it, but the way I understand it is that it was a way in early America to prevent reckless voting. Information was really hard to get to the masses so you more or less had an uniformed public (they didn't have liberal blogs back then Bob) voting for someone they know very little about. But now that information is more freely available and easily accessible, there isn't much need for a middle man anymore, at least in this aspect.

If any of you think that the masses actually know what the frack they are doing, just look at that 'when did 9/11 take place' video. I know that is probably England but the general public are lemmings. They hear free this and that and off they go. They hear global warming shoved down their throats and off they go. Go to vote without actually thinking of how the reality of what the rest of what these people will do will effect them.

Just imagine if they sold Ducati 1098s for 5K(but you have to own it for 4 years). Wow what a deal! Yes, but the valve adjustments that you MUST have done EVERY year will be 2K! So what looked like a deal cost you 8K plust whatever else you needed to do to it. Then you find out the price was 2K because the people that bought Vespa scooters really couldn't afford to service them, so they got the service for free.

[FDNYDANO18]

Originally Posted by CBRBob

If any of you think that the masses actually know what the frack they are doing, just look at that 'when did 9/11 take place' video. I know that is probably England but the general public are lemmings. They hear free this and that and off they go. They hear global warming shoved down their throats and off they go. Go to vote without actually thinking of how the reality of what the rest of what these people will do will effect them.

Just imagine if they sold Ducati 1098s for 5K(but you have to own it for 4 years). Wow what a deal! Yes, but the valve adjustments that you MUST have done EVERY year will be 2K! So what looked like a deal cost you 8K plust whatever else you needed to do to it. Then you find out the price was 2K because the people that bought Vespa scooters really couldn't afford to service them, so they got the service for free.

I love analogies ...... and that is a great one Well Done

[bondo]

Originally Posted by FDNYDANO18

I love analogies ...... and that is a great one Well Done

[bondo]

Originally Posted by ism409

What it means is... If the NJ popular vote selects "candidate A" but "candidate B" gets more votes overall, nationwide, then "candidate B" gets NJ's electoral votes.

If this goes through then presidential candidates will only campaign in the most densely populated areas and no other states' votes will matter.

bingo!
densely populated areas = democrats (and tree-huggers )

In the last presidential election, if you threw out the votes from NYC and LA... Bush would have won by a landslide. No one in the news talks about that.

Why is it that the Democrats always seem to be attempting to change the rules about voting? Last time, I recall it was Hillary supporting legislation that people in prison should vote. They are not out for the little guy. They are out for themselves.

[bondo]

Originally Posted by jcblitz

... Information was really hard to get to the masses so you more or less had an uniformed public (they didn't have liberal blogs back then Bob) voting for someone they know very little about.

But now that information is more freely available and easily accessible, there isn't much need for a middle man anymore, at least in this aspect.

You've got to be kidding.
"Incorrect and biased information" is more freely available in writing, now.
50-80 years ago, it was a bunch of guys talkin' down at the barber shop.

reference:
-chain emails about every one of the candidates
-blogs on both sides
-90% of the media and universities are now democrats


Few people will vote for someone who will really make a difference because so many people will vote for what they think is best for them in the short term... not what's good the country in the long term.

Steering the country towards socialism is not good for the long term.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
- Karl Marx (Hillary, Obama, etc)

[Kennedy]

How about "Survival of the fittest"

[bondo]

Originally Posted by Kennedy

How about "Survival of the fittest"

That's a right wing ideal.
Dems tend to disagree with that

[jcblitz]

Originally Posted by bondo

You've got to be kidding.
"Incorrect and biased information" is more freely available in writing, now.
50-80 years ago, it was a bunch of guys talkin' down at the barber shop.


reference:
-chain emails about every one of the candidates
-blogs on both sides
-90% of the media and universities are now democrats


Few people will vote for someone who will really make a difference because so many people will vote for what they think is best for them in the short term... not what's good the country in the long term.

Steering the country towards socialism is not good for the long term.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
- Karl Marx (Hillary, Obama, etc)

Can you get me your source for those reference usages or did you intercept some chain letter with a link to some blog sent sent by some faggot democrat who took a break from hugging a tree in between abortions and stealing CBRBobs tax money to send out an email to keep the conspiracy going?

And what do you consider short term and long term?

[CBRBob]

You want socialists in power? You want big government control over most everything? Move to a different country! Don't frack this one up. We have enough problems with govt. as is and many of you want to make them your parents that steal from you.......insane!

[Kennedy]

Originally Posted by bondo

That's a right wing ideal.
Dems tend to disagree with that

We would be so much better off

[jcblitz]

Originally Posted by CBRBob

You want socialists in power? You want big government control over most everything? Move to a different country! Don't frack this one up. We have enough problems with govt. as is and many of you want to make them your parents that steal from you.......insane!

Well first, you make it sound like the "non-socialists" are going to shower you with money and give you 40 acres and a mule. The government has gotten bigger under a "non-socialist" (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/....asp?newsID=31 , http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7689 , let me know if those are too liberal for you, I'll turn my socialist filter on google off). You're also saying "You want big government control over most everything?". We'll we've lost a lot of rights under Bush so I'm not sure what they don't control anymore anyway. But no, I want much less government and for them to mind their own business. And I'm not moving to a different country, I'd like to see this one restored to what it's supposed to be. Not what it has become. However, if you would like to not pay taxes to support it and laugh at the homeless, I'm sure there are other countries that can meet your needs. I want Ron Paul for president, he'll rain fire and brimstone down on the government.
-
Edit: Here you go, enjoy fantasy land. http://www.clickpress.com/releases/D...537005cp.shtml

[FDNYDANO18]

Originally Posted by jcblitz

Well first, you make it sound like the "non-socialists" are going to shower you with money and give you 40 acres and a mule. The government has gotten bigger under a "non-socialist" (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/....asp?newsID=31 , http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7689 , let me know if those are too liberal for you, I'll turn my socialist filter on google off). You're also saying "You want big government control over most everything?". We'll we've lost a lot of rights under Bush so I'm not sure what they don't control anymore anyway. But no, I want much less government and for them to mind their own business. And I'm not moving to a different country, I'd like to see this one restored to what it's supposed to be. Not what it has become. However, if you would like to not pay taxes to support it and laugh at the homeless, I'm sure there are other countries that can meet your needs. I want Ron Paul for president, he'll rain fire and brimstone down on the government.
-
Edit: Here you go, enjoy fantasy land. http://www.clickpress.com/releases/D...537005cp.shtml

Truely helpful post.....

ps: George Bush (either or) is NOT a Conservative.... He is a New World Order Republican.... which makes him the Lesser of 2 evils when compared to the DemocRATS/Socialists/Communists.

Mr Franklin,what type of government have you given us Sir?.... Benjamin Franklin:"A Republic,if you can keep it."

[carl_g]

Originally Posted by Kennedy

We would be so much better off

But that goes against everything that you have posted prior to this..

[CBRBob]

I never said the Reps will shower me with money. They just wont tax me out of existence to pay off people who wish to rape the system to sit at home and collect because someone promised them the world.

You want much less govt but the Dems ALWAYS grow govt. I DON'T want big govt control over everything, the dems do. Jeez there were THOUSANDS of bills put forth in NJ this last month and ONLY 3000 passed. 3000!