Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/10/04 02:11 PM, red_skunk wrote: The electoral college, along with a host of other things, limits third parties. It doesn't really matter if a third party candidate gets 5% or 15% in any given state - they get nothing nationally.

So what would they get if they get 5% of the popular vote nationwide and the election hinged on the popular vote?

The same thing they get if they get 5% of the popular vote under the electoral system--matching funds.

The only difference is it becomes easier--or would become easier, if the Reps and Dems stopped calling 3rd parties wasted votes--for the 3rd parties to get to that 5% for the reason I described above.

At 10/10/04 01:29 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 10/10/04 01:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Do you realize that the Electoral College really helps third party candidates, more so than a popular vote election would? And this reform would help them even more.

No it doesn't. Right now, a third party candidate has to win a majority in the state to get anything. Even if we were proportionatly giving out the votes, a third party candidate would have to win majority in a district. How can you possibly say that?

Oh, I didn't say it would help them win the election. But they would garner fewer votes this election if the vote was solely based on the popular vote.

Take a look at your home state, New York. Kerry has a stranglehold on the electors there. A large chunk of voters could for Nader or Cobb or Badnarik, or whoever, and Kerry would still have a strong grip on the electors.

In a popular vote election, however, people would not have that luxury. Since all votes would be tallied into a big, nationwide total under that system, in a close election, like that of 2000 or this year, people would not have the leeway to vote third party without hurting the chances of the major candidate they prefer.

Also, isn't it much easier to win a district than a whole state?

I bet y'all didn't know that Dr. Pepper is a professor of microbiology at the University of Arizona, did you?

http://ag.arizona.edu/swes/people/cv/pepper.htm

No word yet on Mr. Pibb.

At 10/10/04 12:52 PM, El_Toro_Loco wrote: If the problem is unfair distribution of electoral votes to individual votes, then why would we want to only make the electoral vote system a little bit more accurate instead of completely removing it?

Because eradicating the Electoral College would require an expensive, hard-fought constitutional amendment. The method that electors are chosen is left up to the states, and to change the method would not require a constitutional amendment.

Do you realize that the Electoral College really helps third party candidates, more so than a popular vote election would? And this reform would help them even more.

At 10/10/04 12:46 PM, Will124 wrote:

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Did you watch the first debate?

mmmmmuyesh...

Funny, I don't remember addressing you.

He didnt say he was going to do more; he said he was going to do his best to finish it. get your facts straightened up before posting.

Wouldn't it imply that, if he states that the President has not done enough to win the peace, that he has to do more to win it?

I dont recall him [Kerry] ever saying that he would want more troops, other than that you raise a good point.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...ent/2004-04-18-kerry-nbc_x.htm

And from the Nashua Telegraph:
"Kerry seized on Bremer’s remarks as further evidence that Bush has mismanaged the war. But while he too says more troops are needed, he would bolster the numbers with aid from the United Nations and specifically from alleged allies like France and Germany, and through quicker training of Iraqi forces. Well, good luck. There is not one shred of evidence that Kerry would be any more successful than the current administration in bringing about such an arrangement. German and French officials have shown no sign that they want anything to do with the situation, particularly since the war has stirred up increasing anti-Americanism among their own citizens."
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com...OPINION04/110100006/-1/opinion

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: What I don't get, however, is why would all the people who were against the war in Iraq vote for someone who not only voted for the war, but wants to send in even more troops and money than Bush has?

Kerry originally voted for the war most likely because he was told by the president of the united states that thhere were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and a good chance of nuclear warfare.
furthermore, Bush will need more troops and probbly more funding if Kerry will, their plans for Iraq seem kind of similiar.

That still doesn't answer the question of why someone against the war in Iraq would vote for somebody who supports it.

a 'double standard'?
explain, as i have no clue waht you mean by this.

The double standard of criticizing the President for supporting a War in Iraq while voting for John Kerry, who supported it as well.

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: That's also why Kerry and liberals are only concentrating on criticizing Bush.

exactly, and thats why noones realyl focusing on Nader, I beileve that was his point.

Huh? Hermannator didn't say anything about third party candidates.

How would it do if the method of selecting electors in every state to the Electoral College was like Maine's, where each congressional district chose an elector, rather than the state winner taking all of the electoral votes for that state?

At 10/10/04 11:51 AM, Hermannator wrote: Well, in order to win the elections, you need to bust the other candidate's balls on like EVERYTHING. Still, there's a chance that John Kerry noticed the stupidity of the war after voting and change his mind about going to the war on Iraq. Even if he still believes that the Iraq war is a good thing, he needs to use rhetoric in order to make the president look bad to win votes.

But that's the thing, though. Did you watch the first debate? It was mostly Kerry droning on about how Bush didn't have a plan, and he's going to do more than Bush did in Iraq. It's not that Kerry is for the war but campaigning against it--he's for the war and and supports the proliferation of it--more troops, more funding. What I don't get, however, is why would all the people who were against the war in Iraq vote for someone who not only voted for the war, but wants to send in even more troops and money than Bush has?

Besides, if we have to bust John Kerry's balls for voting for the war, then we should do the same for every senator who voted.

Well, shouldn't we be doing that, rather than applying a double standard?

But like I said, rhetorics is need to win elections and that's why Bush and conservatives are only concentrating on criticizing Kerry.

That's also why Kerry and liberals are only concentrating on criticizing Bush.

At 10/10/04 11:25 AM, red_skunk wrote: So said John Kerry.

Indeed. He was also for the war in Iraq, shifted against it when Dean was doing so well against it, shifted back for it when Dean gave his little AAAAAAGGGAHHH!!11 schpiel, and now calls the President for doing everything wrong yet wants to do what Bush has been doing, except to an even greater magnitude.

Not to mention that whole "I did vote for the Iraq war before I voted against it" thing.

At 10/10/04 09:07 AM, -Anthony- wrote: *Throws up* Please never say that again.

Vote John Ashcroft/Jerry Falwell in '04.

How about Colin Powell? He's the next highest Republican in the chain of succession (excuding Pres. Pro Tempore Ted Stevens [R, AK], who is nowhere near as recognizable as Powell), he's already a high level cabinet member, and was for diplomacy in Iraq over Deputy Sec. of Def. Wolfowitz's preemptive war scheme.

At 10/10/04 12:44 AM, BrotherLIBERAL wrote: http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/9872659.htm

Cobb and Badnarik were put behind bars Friday.

At least these candidates have no qualms about using civil disobedience and trying to dismantle the two party system.

But the fundraising continues, seeing as how they are still able to collect rent from Park Place and Boardwalk, where they have hotels. Now, maybe they can just roll doubles...

At 10/10/04 12:42 AM, BrotherLIBERAL wrote: Suppose the Speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert) was a Democrat. This is for argument sake, so bear with me.

Suppose he was a Democrat. What would happen if both Cheney + Bush died in the next couple of days? Who would run on the Republican Ticket, and how would he/she be chosen?

Well, Dennis Hastert would be irrelevant to who would run and how they would be chosen. Should both running mates die or become otherwise ineligible, the committeemen and women from that party would meet again (not necessarily all, and not necessarily in a big fancy convention) to select another pair of running mates. The Minority Whip, Majority Whip, or any other member of Congress would have no say.

Here's a scary thought. Most of you know that one cabinet member must be in another part of the country when the State of the Union address occurs, to maintain the chain of succession in case something disasterous occurs at the Capitol. What would happen if terrorists struck the Capitol, killing the President, Vice President, Speaker, President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Defense, while the Attorney General was out in California?

3 words: President John Ashcroft.

Yikes.

Oh, and it would be kinda ironic if Trent Lott ended up being the Minority Whip, wouldn't it?

At 10/8/04 02:31 AM, spanishfli wrote:

US Citizens. 4. ever.

What if you reside in America but aren't yet a citizen?

At 10/8/04 09:35 PM, spanishfli wrote: US American.

What about if we refered to ourselves in a first person plural?

"They're no better than us US Americans."

Awkward, ain't it?

At 10/9/04 01:01 AM, spanishfli wrote:

So not all countries call us Americans.

No, we're also known as "assholes" , "plunderers", "idiots", "buffoons", "stupid Americans", etc.

At 10/9/04 09:06 PM, spanishfli wrote: Mexican politicans and university students refer Mexico as "Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos", translating what I have posted. Older Mexican flags, especially during the time of the Mexican Revolution, have those words sewn into them.

So technically, Mexico could also be called the United States.

It would be the same technicality to call the US as America.

Just because everyone and too stubburn to change doesn't mean we're correct.

Is this an actual issue or just a petty argument over semantics? Are there people all over the Western Hemisphere clamoring for us to stop ourselves Americans? If so, who, and how many are there, and where?

And if this is just a petty argument over semantics, how about this: I live in the state of Georgia, a state of the United States. There is also an Asian country named Georgia. What should I call myself?

At 10/6/04 01:44 AM, GregHead wrote: I think there should be an "interactive" category for the Flash Portal. How does everybody else feel about this idea?

I wouldn't mind, but I would imagine there would be a great deal of programming that would have to be done, and it would be difficult to get everyone who has already submitted flash to recategorize their flash to interactive if appropriate.

It might have been OK when the portal was introduced, but the disadvantages outweigh the benefits right now.

Why not just say to yourself that they're movies, just with extras, like DVD's?

At 10/5/04 02:29 PM, SouthPhillyGangsta wrote:

Hmmm,you must have a great dental plan,cause from the looks of it,you like eating candy thats shit-loaded with sugar.

Not really. I'm apathetic towards most candy. I even dislike chocolate.

I just like skittles and especially skittles gum.

Plus I brush my teeth 3 times a day.

It's Skittles Gum!

Has anyone else tried this? It debuted around a couple of months ago. It tastes like just like Skittles candy, only it's in gum form.

Since I bought my first pack of it, I have bought 4 cases of it (1 case containing 14 packs) from Sam's Club. The last one i bought is in the picture below, already half empty.

Fine, all it boils down to is ignorance.

At 10/5/04 01:11 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: Funny thing, we get plenty of that on this side of the pond. At least from the muslim council of britian anyway.

Note, though, that this poll is taken of Americans.

I too, was arrested very violently. She didn't read me my rights, threw me down on the floor, handcuffed me, made me lick the floor, spanked me, bound and gagged me, then pulled out a leather whip and flogged me with it.

Oh. I'm thinking about that dominatrix I hired.

Never mind.

At 10/5/04 01:52 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Yes. They should violate our right to free speech... *obvious sarcasm*.

Cussing at other people is not necessarily protected by the first amendment, especially if it is provocative and inciteful towards violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

At 10/4/04 09:36 PM, red_skunk wrote: Poll: 1 in 4 Hold Anti-Muslim Views

The poll found that people most likely to have negative attitudes were male, white, less educated, politically conservative and living in the South."

Well, there went any chance of Daytona hosting the Allah Akbar 500.

Thoughts and comments?

I accept that Islam is a religion of peace. While that may be true, it doesn't seem like many Muslims show it.

I can see many reasons why people would hold this view:

§ Those Palestinians celebrating 9/11, and 9/11 itself
§ Little or no condemnation from the Muslim community of terrorist acts/beheadings taking place in Iraq and elsewhere
§ Perceived hatred towards Americans held by Muslims

As justifiable or not those three reasons are for holding unfavorable opinions are, it's easy to see why, especially if it's combined with ignorance. Of course, even ignorance aside, it's easy to see why people would hold anti-Muslim views.

At 10/4/04 10:38 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 10/4/04 10:20 PM, BrotherLIBERAL wrote: FAIL.

FAIL

SOCIAL PROMOTION.

At 10/5/04 10:19 AM, werd123 wrote: Discuss

No.

Double shifts at work are not fun. Especially if you don't get paid extra for doing them, and they're imposed upon you.

I just got home after being at work since noon.

*collapses*

Remember, it is customary, when Custom officers ask you at the border check point if you have anything to declare, you must reply with "yeah...thumb war!!!"

Best 3 out of 5 wins.

Do you ever shop at a dollar or 99 cent store? What do you normally buy there, if you do? What was the best deal you ever found there?

I recently bought some computer games (including an EA Sports game), some classic movies on DVD, a couple of 3 liter sodas for a party, 3 rolls of Necco Wafers (my favorite candy), and a 3 pack of CD-R's, all for a grand total of $9.60. I've estimated, when I compared the prices to another store, that I would have spent nearly triple that elsewhere.

I find dollar stores to be the perfect store when you need something for a low price and quickly.

If you use a bunch of complicated words, appositives, a bunch of "however" and "moreover" and other transition words, and throw in a bunch of technical jargon, especially if the audience doesn't know anything, you can basically BS your way through anything.

At 10/3/04 06:01 PM, imdisturbed wrote: The leader of india gives the leader of palistine a present for his birthday. The leader of palistine thinks its a sweater and he opens the box and BOOOOM no more palistine.

Don't you mean Pakistan? I didn't know the Palestinians were fighting for both the West Bank and Jammu/Kashmir.

I like to have fun with them too. Of course, even more hilarity can ensue when you use the map_edit and move_object cheats. And you can have more fun with downloaded objects.

I moved a baby cradle near a fire. The cradle caught on fire, but was good as new when the fire went out.

I've made the social worker swim with the baby.

I've put up a door that I downloaded in the bathroom, and the sims had to pay 500 dollars to get into the bathroom.

I've built walls around school buses, trapping them.

road sign

Here's my foot...complete with toe that has been broken for about a year or so since a hiking misstep...

I'm surprised no one's mentioned HAQnSPITT yet.

And what about this foxy lady?