![]() |
Quote:
Racist anyone? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bleeding heart / let's just get along liberal, anyone? |
Quote:
That is racism. And not something to be proud of. I'm not a bleeding heart or "just get along liberal". I dislike the terrorists as much as you do. But I have ALOT of muslim and some sikh friends (you know, the people who wear turbans) that dislike the terrorists as much as you and I do. And it pisses me off when you lump everyone together as ragheads. What ethnicity are you so I can call you a racial epithet? So I can racial profile you, and lump you in with all the others like you...oh wait.... Fucking dumbass. That crosses all the skin tones.... |
Quote:
2) as far as i know the enlistment quotas are still being met ahead of schedule. i haven't looked up the numbers but i am in regular contact with a handful of recruiters. the only complaint that i have seen is that the quotas aren't allowing for enough growth to keep up with the growing demands. there are more people that are not re-enlisting, but that is true anytime there is a heavy deployment schedule while there are jobs in the civilian community. |
Quote:
What ethnicity am I? Proud to be a third generation American combat veteran, thank you, and willing to go again if needed to defend your right to practice your beliefs. When and if your "ALOT of Muslim friends" gain an upper hand in this war, you and your infidel friends will be the next heads on the Islamic chopping block, ala Nick Berg. |
Quote:
It's my understanding that the difference between an electoral college (voting system?) and a popular vote is that in the former, the votes for a region are pooled together. That is, the person with the majority of votes in a specific state gets all of the votes for that state. In states that are heavily dominated by a certain political leaning, this causes problems; the lone dissenter's vote is only considered within a smaller context than is (I'd imagine) technologically necessary. What's the link between changing how votes are counted and giving anybody carte blanche to do anything? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
For instance, in a presidential election, it would take away a portion of the block voting power of states. |
I always thought that was the general principle of democracy -- that everybody (within very broad guidelines, such as 'over age 18') gets to vote.
I'll concede that it could suck (a lot of people are pretty fucking dumb). But if the really-fucking-dumb people start organizing stupid-committes to force their dumb on us, we smart people can always slaughter a new indigenous society. Who's up for New Zealand? |
Sorry, TS...I didn't realize that that was the scenario.
But how much power does a state really have anyway? Here's how presidential politics works now: the nominees focus on the most populous and battleground states. Here's how presidential politics will work without the EC: the nominees will focus on the most populous and battleground areas. IOW, not much will change, IMO. |
Quote:
An idea that just occured to me: Let everybody vote, but only count the ones of citizens who meet a certain set of, as yet undetermined, standards. |
Quote:
State blocks of votes give regions a way to muster votes to handle regional issues. Without a state, what need is there for legislators? As appealing as that idea may be, the state is an intermediary between the top and the bottom. |
I have no desire to get rid of states...I only wish to see the end of the EC.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.