Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Skylar]

And of course, back up your claim that the majority of Americans didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex. Back your crap up.

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

 

[dcraelin]

And of course, back up your claim that the majority of Americans didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex. Back your crap up.

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

There was no nationalwide vote on interacial marriage or sex. So your sources are suspect. how many polls showed Dewey winning? how many polls were wrong even for this years races? But as i've said before the nation decided that issue when they passed the 14th amendment. Which pretty clearly addresses that issue.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

My assertion within this issue is the difference between the reasons why the founders thought an electoral college, AND a senate, were needed...and begin discussion regarding whether or not the electoral college is warrants the disproportiante influence it creates for the everage voter in Wyoming, over that of the voter in California

I disagree somewhat on this...despite so called disproportianate influence..."flyover" country still gets little attention from presidential candidates and from the washington establishment. Smaller states could use even more influence, I think they are generally less corrupt than the big staes so it would benefit most americans too.

I'm really exhausted by a lack willingness to discuss the topic, from others, and that's not your fault.

But what I'd like to research more...was why the founders thought the electoral college was needed, then compare those needs with our reality today.

I still have some reading to do though, and after that I'll maybe start a thread focusing on that one question.

I think part of it was just making it easier to organize/count votes. But it also supported state power, power of state legeslatures.
does sound like a good thread to start.

Okay, here are a few arguments I found, both for, and against, the Electoral College.

I started out against it, but I'm now on the fence.

What do you say?

For:

• contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
• enhances the status of minority interests,
• contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
• maintains a federal system of government and representation

The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.

Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

• the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,

• the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and

• its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will

The Electoral College was a compromise adopted by the Founding Fathers, some of whom wanted the President elected directly, while others preferred selection by Congress. The Electoral College allowed for the election of a President who has support of the national electorate. But, if several candidates split the national vote, the election is sent to the legisature. Since the Founding Fathers thought this would happen often, the Electoral College was the least minimally acceptable to everyone involved.

Other reasons seem less outdated. The Electoral College allowed the 3/5ths compromise to be carried over into the election. The FF thought the American people wouldn't be able to make an intelligent decision

I've also read that the elctoral college is likea sport tournament. That it amounts to winning a number of games rather than one big one. It clarifies the vote, so we dont need nationwide recounts.
I think it could use some reforms. The discrepency between large and small states wasnt so wide at our founding, so perhaps that could be addressed somehow.

The States are members of the Union, not individuals.

The misnomer is that 'We, the people of the united States..." are citizens of the Federal Government. We're not.

We're citizens of our respective State. When we vote for a President of the Federal Government, we vote as a citizen of our State, we then send our vote, via our electoral reps, to represent our vote for President.

The ignorance of the electoral college by our resident 'moderates', is just another symptom of the subversion perpetrated upon us, by the Communists that Senator McCarthy worked SO HARD to warn our folks about.

 

[Skylar]

"Theism" is not Religion.

Depends on the religion. Any religion that involves at least one god is theism. And almost all religions do.

Christianity is a religion.

Christianity obviously is theism as it involves the belief in at least one god. Any religion that involves a god is theism.

Which does not require the killing of homosexuals.

The founders clearly disagreed, interpreting the following passage in a very different fashion that you and most modern American Christians do;

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20 NIV - Punishments for Sin - The LORD said to - Bible Gateway

Pennsylvania actually cited this passage from the Bible as their law, word for word. And executed gays found engaged in sodomy. It carried the death penalty in every state of the union during the era of the founders. Jefferson tried to liberalize the laws of Virginia by proposing castration instead. But the state legislature wasn't moved, keeping the more draconian death penalty on their books.

So why did the Founders believe differently than you and most modern Christians do if culture, history, society and personal context play no role in religion?

Nature requires that, but only where the goal is the survival of the species, through the maintenance of the viability of that species.

And when did nature say this? Can you quote nature? With sources please. And of course, the 'Lord' was pretty clear that those engaged in homosexual sex must be put to death. The "Lord' didn't offer any caveats or any 'but only's. So apparently in your mind anyway, 'Nature' trump the 'Lord'. I don't know that many Christians would agree with you.

And of course, you just demonstrated how uselessly subjective religion is. As the Bible is obvious and clear: 'They must be put to death'. You don't like that commandment, so you've made up your own source that trumps the Lord. And ignored what you didn't want to believe. Any theist can do this with any portion of their religious text or beliefs. They can just cherry pick, straight up dismissing a commandment, any commandment....if they don't like it.

That's hardly 'objective'. But intimately subjective.....where you decide what you want to believe based on what you choose to cherry pick and what you choose to ignore, based on whatever criteria you imagine or make up. You pretend to speak for 'nature'. And then invent caveats and exceptions that the 'Lord' never included. And then ignore the 'Lord' based on your own inventions.

Proving in a stroke that religion is hopelessly, inevitably, inescapably subjective. Because any theist can do exactly what you just did. And most do.

Christians today are having to relearn the lessons that were readily known by the Founders.

Which Christians? Because there's no significant call from Christians in the US to execute gays for sodomy as the Bible commands. While sodomy was a capital offense in EVERY State in every state during the era of the founders. And explicitly motivated by the Bible.

Christians of today clearly don't hold the same beliefs as Christians of the era of the founders. Explain why. With no reference to society, culture, history or personal context.

Good luck with that.

 

[dcraelin]

QUOTE="toxicmedia, post: 10315229, member: 30963"]

I disagree somewhat on this...despite so called disproportianate influence..."flyover" country still gets little attention from presidential candidates and from the washington establishment. Smaller states could use even more influence, I think they are generally less corrupt than the big staes so it would benefit most americans too.

I'm really exhausted by a lack willingness to discuss the topic, from others, and that's not your fault.

But what I'd like to research more...was why the founders thought the electoral college was needed, then compare those needs with our reality today.

I still have some reading to do though, and after that I'll maybe start a thread focusing on that one question.

I think part of it was just making it easier to organize/count votes. But it also supported state power, power of state legeslatures.
does sound like a good thread to start.

Okay, here are a few arguments I found, both for, and against, the Electoral College.

I started out against it, but I'm now on the fence.

What do you say?

For:

• contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
• enhances the status of minority interests,
• contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
• maintains a federal system of government and representation

The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.

Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

• the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,

• the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and

• its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will

The Electoral College was a compromise adopted by the Founding Fathers, some of whom wanted the President elected directly, while others preferred selection by Congress. The Electoral College allowed for the election of a President who has support of the national electorate. But, if several candidates split the national vote, the election is sent to the legisature. Since the Founding Fathers thought this would happen often, the Electoral College was the least minimally acceptable to everyone involved.

Other reasons seem less outdated. The Electoral College allowed the 3/5ths compromise to be carried over into the election. The FF thought the American people wouldn't be able to make an intelligent decision

I've also read that the elctoral college is likea sport tournament. That it amounts to winning a number of games rather than one big one. It clarifies the vote, so we dont need nationwide recounts.
I think it could use some reforms. The discrepency between large and small states wasnt so wide at our founding, so perhaps that could be addressed somehow.

The States are members of the Union, not individuals.

The misnomer is that 'We, the people of the united States..." are citizens of the Federal Government. We're not.

We're citizens of our respective State. When we vote for a President of the Federal Government, we vote as a citizen of our State, we then send our vote, via our electoral reps, to represent our vote for President.

The ignorance of the electoral college by our resident 'moderates', is just another symptom of the subversion perpetrated upon us, by the Communists that Senator McCarthy worked SO HARD to warn our folks about.[/QUOTE]
That would be inconsistent with how the Constitution itself was passed! The state convenetions had specailly elected representatives to address the constitutional issue itself..in a way bypassing the state legislatures.

Way over the top to see this as some sort of communist subversion.

 

[toxicmedia]

I disagree somewhat on this...despite so called disproportianate influence..."flyover" country still gets little attention from presidential candidates and from the washington establishment. Smaller states could use even more influence, I think they are generally less corrupt than the big staes so it would benefit most americans too.

I'm really exhausted by a lack willingness to discuss the topic, from others, and that's not your fault.

But what I'd like to research more...was why the founders thought the electoral college was needed, then compare those needs with our reality today.

I still have some reading to do though, and after that I'll maybe start a thread focusing on that one question.

I think part of it was just making it easier to organize/count votes. But it also supported state power, power of state legeslatures.
does sound like a good thread to start.

Okay, here are a few arguments I found, both for, and against, the Electoral College.

I started out against it, but I'm now on the fence.

What do you say?

For:

• contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
• enhances the status of minority interests,
• contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, and
• maintains a federal system of government and representation

The Electoral College has performed its function for over 200 years (and in over 50 presidential elections) by ensuring that the President of the United States has both sufficient popular support to govern and that his popular support is sufficiently distributed throughout the country to enable him to govern effectively.

Although there were a few anomalies in its early history, none have occurred in the past century. Proposals to abolish the Electoral College, though frequently put forward, have failed largely because the alternatives to it appear more problematic than is the College itself.

The fact that the Electoral College was originally designed to solve one set of problems but today serves to solve an entirely different set of problems is a tribute to the genius of the Founding Fathers

Against:

• the possibility of electing a minority president

• the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,

• the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout, and

• its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will

The Electoral College was a compromise adopted by the Founding Fathers, some of whom wanted the President elected directly, while others preferred selection by Congress. The Electoral College allowed for the election of a President who has support of the national electorate. But, if several candidates split the national vote, the election is sent to the legisature. Since the Founding Fathers thought this would happen often, the Electoral College was the least minimally acceptable to everyone involved.

Other reasons seem less outdated. The Electoral College allowed the 3/5ths compromise to be carried over into the election. The FF thought the American people wouldn't be able to make an intelligent decision

I've also read that the elctoral college is likea sport tournament. That it amounts to winning a number of games rather than one big one. It clarifies the vote, so we dont need nationwide recounts.
I think it could use some reforms. The discrepency between large and small states wasnt so wide at our founding, so perhaps that could be addressed somehow.

The States are members of the Union, not individuals.

The misnomer is that 'We, the people of the united States..." are citizens of the Federal Government. We're not.

We're citizens of our respective State. When we vote for a President of the Federal Government, we vote as a citizen of our State, we then send our vote, via our electoral reps, to represent our vote for President.

The ignorance of the electoral college by our resident 'moderates', is just another symptom of the subversion perpetrated upon us, by the Communists that Senator McCarthy worked SO HARD to warn our folks about.

Wow, an unapologetic McCarthyist.

I like when a man says where he's at.

 

[francoHFW]

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Yup, pure coincidence. lol. IDIOT

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with the HUAC.

McCarthy's claim was that senior people in the Administration were Communist spies and he vastly underestimated the degree to which Democrats were reporting to Stalin and Mao.

He had NOTHING to do with Blacklisting Hollywood writers or actors

NOTHING

I'll have to say it a few hundred more times but that's because you're a complete fucking imbecile. Even Wry, who I accuse of being an intellectual lightweight realized the error and he's desperately trying to back away.

Yup, McCarthy had nothing to with McCarthyism lol...

 

[francoHFW]

And of course, back up your claim that the majority of Americans didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex. Back your crap up.

When you stated that the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage, sex, whatever to be a crime and I said you are full of shit. The claim is mine and it's my job to prove you wrong.

Noted.

Sort of your approach to government, isn't it? No wonder you are a liberal. Nothing is ever on you, including what you said.

And again, you carefully edit my reply of any mention of the lies that you told, the mispresentations you offered, and your own posts proving your hapless attempts at deception/

Why?

What is unclear to you about me asking you to back up your claim that the "majority" thought interracial sex/marriage/whatever should be a crime in 1967? What are you not grasping about that? The majority of people could get an interracial marriage then. What is your claim based on?

What's marvelously clear is that you lied repeatedly about my posts to forward your argument. And that I caught you lying so utterly and completely that you abandoned your entire round of lies. Gone is your inept babble that I actually said 'interracial marriage', not 'interracial sex'. Gone are blithering nonsense that I claimed that Americans support criminalizing interracial sex.

Just as clearly, you lack the integrity to admit you lied. And you've already discounted even the possibility of a mistake or misunderstanding as you've told me that you understood everything I said. What's left are incompetent attempts at deception that I easily shut down with better logic, better reasoning and a vastly superior command of our conversation.

And what else is superbly clear is that you can't back your claim that the majority didn't support the criminalization of interracial sex in 1967. Back your crap....with sources. As you've already demonstrated how little your word is worth.

There was no nationalwide vote on interacial marriage or sex. So your sources are suspect. how many polls showed Dewey winning? how many polls were wrong even for this years races? But as i've said before the nation decided that issue when they passed the 14th amendment. Which pretty clearly addresses that issue.

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Sure, but anyone with a brain would figure Conservative Southern Dems were against inter-racial marriage and kept Dems over a barrel til the 60's, like a-holes like Cruz do to the GOP today.

 

[Steinlight]

n

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

So we need government to make our choices for us to protect us from making bad ones? Thank God we have a moral government that can make our choices for us better than we can. You sure trust them to give them that kind of power. I'm not sure why the liberals bother you so much when you trust government to be the guardian of morality. BTW, they don't deserve that trust.

Now liberals can walk through your door. Government needs to confiscate our money and give it to the right causes because we may not pick the right ones or give enough. Government has to ensure we have access to free birth control because we can't trust people to provide it themselves. It's a never ending cycle.

Yes, at a certain level, people need to be protected by the state, both internally and externally. So unless you are against the idea of a state and policing powers on principle, I don't see why you are so offended by my notion the government should at some level contain and restrict harmful vices.

The problem with Libertarianism is they view humans beings as atomistic individuals who actions have no effect on the greater community, whether it be socially or economically. Some don't recognize this, others accept it and don't care. So either they are ignorant or nihilistic. So I simply disagree with them on this point. I think they make good points on decentralization of power but their hyper-individualism and materialism disgusts me.

Our government isn't moral at the moment because the people aren't moral. John Adams even said our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people.

You are a materialist and a nihilist, congratulations.

Oh quit, I'm neither, and a little public nudity, gambling, prostitution, and so on...would only offend a prude. Which makes me think you might be a Republican

Yea, it isn't like gambling has bankrupted families, or prostitution leads to social ills like diseases, drug use, and suicide, yea I must be a TEA BAGGER. Wow, how insightful.

Drug use is only a problem if you're an alchoholic or an addict, and you can't create laws to change that. For that there is AA and NA.

Gambling is a fun hobby unless you're addicted to it. Gambling addiction is incurable and bearly treatable. And not with laws.

Prostitution like so many things is not so bad without the stigma prudes dump onto it, and the illegality of it creating the crime surrounding it.

Drug use is a problem for family and friends of the afflicted as well. Not to mention the surrounding community who has the economic costs and social costs of drug addiction placed on it(less productivity, more poverty, more welfare, more crime). Drug abuse isn't merely an individual issue.

Your standard for whether something is legal is whether it is fun to you? That is a subjective and dangerous standard if applied to its extremes. I don't think it is fun, nor do I think bankruptcy or losing an important paycheck is fun, especially if someone has a wife and kids, and no, not all such people are addicts.

So republican prudes cause prostitutes to use drugs, get diseases, commit crime, and commit suicide at higher rates? That is an interesting theory, care to back it up. The reason people oppose prostitution is not because we hate sex, its because we understand the undo damage such activity has on the individual, and the costs it can potentially place not only on those close to them but on the greater society. It isn't my fault you are so atomized and narrow minded you don't realize these things.

Another point is, people aren't born gambling or drug addicts. They are born with addictive personalities. So if you can curb the particular harmful addictive habits through you reduce the social and economic costs that come with said addictions and increase social capital.

You can't stop drug/alchohol abuse with laws. The Baltimore Washingtonians started a movement in 1840 that wound up being the failed Temperance Movement. The government should stay out of an given family's problems with addiction. You don't see the crime involved with alchohol anymore because it's regulated. The same could easily apply with drugs.

Republicans aren't the reason for peripheral crime resulting from illegal behavior. The illegality of the behavior forces it underground where it is at the mercy of criminals, along with the people who practice that behavior.

People develop addictive behavior, it clearly runs in families, and meaningful treatment is the job of counselors and AA/NA

And what is your problem?...I keep my criticism generalized, and it's not my fault if you jump in front of my oncoming generalized criticism. Yet you and that other guy just can't get through a post without an insult to me.

I was enthused about creating thoughtful responses to your comprehensive posts, but now I'll just go get another cup of coffee and watch the news.

Feel free to declare yourself victorious. I don't know what I was thinking. You were right, and I have no idea what facts even are.

Have a nice day.

I am not an advocate of the prohibition of alcohol, but to say the laws restricting didn't reduce consumption is false. For example, during Prohibition, cirrhosis deaths decreased about 10-20%. Also initially, alcohol consumption rates were 30% the pre-prohibition consumption rate, and throughout prohibition were about 60-70% the pre-prohibition consumption rate. To say that Prohibition didn't work in reducing overall consumption and then extrapolate that it doesn't work for drugs is simply wrong.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf

Also, you are going to have to be specific, what crime would decrease as a result of legalizing drugs(by this I assume you don't just mean marijuana, but also things like Meth and Heroine). Besides of course possession, which would no longer be a crime, that is a moot point. What form of crime would decrease as a result of legalization of drugs?

There is nothing wrong with driving anti-social behavior underground. Rather it be placed on the margins of society as opposed to being out in the open and incurring large economic and social costs. You still haven't explained for example, how banning prostitution makes prostitutes commit suicide at a higher rate, get STDs at higher rates, use drugs at higher rates, and commit crimes outside of prostitution at higher rates?

I don't disagree, treatment of addiction should be the purview of families, churches, communities, and counselors.

 

[Skylar]

The States are members of the Union, not individuals.

The misnomer is that 'We, the people of the united States..." are citizens of the Federal Government. We're not.

Actually we are. Check the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

From the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

A federal citizen is a citizen of the United States. Any citizen that resides in a State is a State citizen and a Federal Citizen. Its a legal concept known as 'concurrent jurisdiction'. Residents of DC, territories, and areas of exclusively federal jurisdiction are only Federal Citizens.

We're citizens of our respective State. When we vote for a President of the Federal Government, we vote as a citizen of our State, we then send our vote, via our electoral reps, to represent our vote for President.

The state legislatures assign electors. And the electors elect the president. The method of the selection of electors is whatever the State legislatures want it to be. They could pick candidates alphabetically. They could throw darts. They could just assign the electors to whomever they wish. However, 50 of 50 times, each individual state has decided to allow the popular vote of its citizens to decide how electors are assigned. Some states assign all electors to the winner of the popular vote. Some assign electors based proportion of the vote.

But here's the dirty little secret. At any time up to when the electors are recognized at the electoral college, the State legislature can change its mind. If they don't like the results of the election or found it to be unsound......or any reason at all.....they can recall their authority and assign the electors as they wish. The Florida legislature nearly did just such a thing in 2000 amid the Bush v. Gore controversy.

The ignorance of the electoral college by our resident 'moderates', is just another symptom of the subversion perpetrated upon us, by the Communists that Senator McCarthy worked SO HARD to warn our folks about.

Hmmm. Interesting little conspiracy. What is your ignorance of federal citizenship a symptom of? Because anyone who's read the first line in the 14th amendment wouldn't have made the blunder you just did.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever..

Um ... read my sig ...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

When you harm someone, then we agree that is a crime.

Your rules for when it is and is not appropriate for arresting someone based on that they ... may ... harm someone are just arbitrary. People do all kinds of things that may harm someone. Criminalizing activities based on possibilities is ridiculous. You're a lot more like authoritarian leftists than I am. I am nothing like them. Their whole agenda is based on what could happen. OMG, you may be old and not have saved any money! You may be black and you may run into a racist who won't hire you! OMG, you may be a woman who wants to have sex and you may not be able to afford birth control! You may be married to a gambler and he may be compulsive and he may gamble your money away! You may be married to a pot head and he may mmore on to more drugs, and he may...

We need government to take care of it now!

Much of the law is based on minimizing "harm", or preventative actions. What are traffic laws, or building codes but preventative measures the minimize harm(and measures that reduce the risk of economic and social costs being occurred from say multiple accidents on the road ways or building collapsing due to fire or earthquake). My positions aren't arbitrary at all, but based on the body of evidence of the negative economic and social costs that prostitution, drug use, and gambling have on a society. They are common sense, something you begin to understand with maturing as you grow out of the high school/college libertarian phase.

I don't know what I can tell you. You're just rationalizing. You're no different than liberals, you just want different things. Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

So what if you can't enforce traffic laws on personal property? What does that have to do with anything? Building codes, for example, most certainly regulate personal property under the guise of minimizing harm(economic and social costs of poorly built buildings). So are you against building codes because they are laws on people's personal property?

 

[Steinlight]

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever..

Um ... read my sig ...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

When you harm someone, then we agree that is a crime.

Your rules for when it is and is not appropriate for arresting someone based on that they ... may ... harm someone are just arbitrary. People do all kinds of things that may harm someone. Criminalizing activities based on possibilities is ridiculous. You're a lot more like authoritarian leftists than I am. I am nothing like them. Their whole agenda is based on what could happen. OMG, you may be old and not have saved any money! You may be black and you may run into a racist who won't hire you! OMG, you may be a woman who wants to have sex and you may not be able to afford birth control! You may be married to a gambler and he may be compulsive and he may gamble your money away! You may be married to a pot head and he may mmore on to more drugs, and he may...

We need government to take care of it now!

Much of the law is based on minimizing "harm", or preventative actions. What are traffic laws, or building codes but preventative measures the minimize harm(and measures that reduce the risk of economic and social costs being occurred from say multiple accidents on the road ways or building collapsing due to fire or earthquake). My positions aren't arbitrary at all, but based on the body of evidence of the negative economic and social costs that prostitution, drug use, and gambling have on a society. They are common sense, something you begin to understand with maturing as you grow out of the high school/college libertarian phase.

I don't know what I can tell you. You're just rationalizing. You're no different than liberals, you just want different things. Once you decide government can make our choices for us just because they can when we have harmed no one then what they do with that incredible power are just the details. You justify everything the left wants legally. You just again want something different. BTW, you can't enforce traffic laws on people's personal property. That analogy is a failure from go.

So what if you can't enforce traffic laws on personal property? What does that have to do with anything? Building codes, for example, most certainly regulate personal property under the guise of minimizing harm(economic and social costs of poorly built buildings). So are you against building codes because they are laws on people's personal property?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Innocent people were devastated by McCarthy.
Lucille Ball was a huge success in spite of him.
McCarthy died of alcoholism at 48.

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC? You don't, nor do I. I never said he did, and you claiming I did makes you a LIAR!

I suggested it was possible (learn to read, asshole) and you won't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Of course you are a liar, for you posted this (without once bit of evidence), "McCarthy never "Colluded" with them". How do you know (you don't). You're really too stupid to engage in an argument when you partisan biases blind you to what I post, and you are a typical dishonest right wing hack.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Theism" is not Religion.

Depends on the religion. Any religion that involves at least one god is theism. And almost all religions do.

'Any religion which believes in at least one god is 'THEISTIC'... a religion which rests within Theism.' (Fixed that for ya. No Charge)

Christianity is a religion with a specific set of beliefs, set in specific tenets and principles...

Theism is the general belief in the existence of a god. That, in general terms, God created the universe and is intelligent, omniscient, omnipresent, Omnipotent.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which does not require the killing of homosexuals.

The founders clearly disagreed, interpreting the following passage in a very different fashion that you and most modern American Christians do

Yep... and that's because Homosexuality is sexual abnormality which stems from a perversion of human reasoning, which is incredibly destructive to the viability of the species.

This is a lesson which apparently needs to be re-learned from time to time.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20 NIV - Punishments for Sin - The LORD said to - Bible Gateway

Yes... Old Testament. Good stuff. The New Testament requires that we forgive those who sin, where they ask for such.

We're a peaceful, loving caring people. But ... we cannot tolerate that which destroys us. And pretending that that which is abnormal, which rejects fundamental principles... which are intrinsic to humanity, which sustain the viability of the species, is about as destructive as it gets.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So why did the Founders believe differently than you

They didn't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature requires that, but only where the goal is the survival of the species, through the maintenance of the viability of that species.

And when did nature say this?

Nature doesn't 'say' anything... it demonstrates it laws.

Point to the cultures which throughout history have tolerated Sexual Abnormality. When you finally come to recognize that all of such cultures are long dead, I'll be here to accept your concession.

Naturally, where you manage to show evidence of longstanding sexual abnormality accepting culture's, I'll happily concede to you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Christians today are having to relearn the lessons that were readily known by the Founders.

Which Christians? Because there's no significant call from Christians in the US to execute gays for sodomy as the Bible commands. While sodomy was a capital offense in EVERY State in every state during the era of the founders. And explicitly motivated by the Bible.

Yeah... People still have plenty of food on the shelves, a decent house, kids are generally healthy and whole.

So it's 'go along to get along' season. Sadly, the applications of colossally bad ideas have been stacking up... and there is a tremendous amount of shift stored.

We may have had a chance, if obama had not been elected directly in the wake of the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy, but with his long-term determination to double down on those policies... we're totally boned.

When it blows and nature requires it must, that explosion will chime in the end of the 'go along to get along' period. And from there, the nation will begin to rebuild and the new culture which forms from it, will be one which has returned to sound fundamentals.

And in case you're keeping score, normalizing abnormality bears no kinship with sound anything, not the least of which, are fundamentals.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

McCarthy had NOTHING to do with Lucille Ball

That's one of the many Progressive Big Lies about McCarthy

She and Desi were investigated with a lot of innuendo...split hairs much? McCarthy had nothing to do do with HUAC? Give me a break...He was the leader and started the whole disgraceful mess...

OMFG!!!!

You're the Biggest FUCKING MORON ON USMB!!!!

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I TELL YOU MCCARTHY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HUAC

GET A FUCKING CLUE

ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF LEARNING ANYTHING????????

Let's examine this Issue. McCarthy was a Senator; the HUAC was a H. of Rep. Committee. So (surprise), CF is technically correct. But when we consider Ted Cruz and his recent efforts to influence the H. of Rep., the possibility of McCarthy colluding with members of the HUAC, and the HUAC being Crazy Right Wing before it became fashionable, is not an inappropriate assumption.

I'm not just "technically correct" Freddo, McCarthy had NOTHING to do with it, not once, not ever.

McCarthy never "Colluded" with them, you're just making shit up now because unlike FranCoWTf you might have more than 2 functioning brain cells and see how stupid and dishonest the McCarthy/HUAC meme is

Associating McCarthy with HUAC was "not an inappropriate assumption" is was a Goebbels Big Lie perpetrated by the Communist Progressives who were directing the message. They repeated this Goebbels Big Lie for generations until people like yourself and FranCoWTf assumed it was the truth.

Listen (or read) asshole, how do you know (post the evidence) that McCarthy hadn't ever colluded with the HUAC?

ROFLMNAO!

So the Relativist only requires that its opposition go through every move that a person who lived 70 years ago, made... to PROVE that they did not do something.

Which they require because they can't show the behavior which THEY DEMAND the individual DID.

Now if one is a person who suffers from a perversion of human reasoning... OKA: A Relativist... that makes 'perfect sense'.