Despite recent propaganda espousing that our country was founded on the principal of the solitary citizen...a person who lifted him or herself by the effort and sweat of their brow...I say quite to the contrary. Ourfounding fathers were very comfortable with the concepts of socialism.

Just look at the Declaration of Indenpendence....all that talk of entitlements to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These entitlements were not only guaranteed to citizens (of the yet unformed government)...but to all people..well Men! Still a very revolutionary and communist ideal. The very concept of this entitled person generated a relatively new word...the citizen. The term citizen was in it's day equal to the communist title of comrade. You could say that at least the concept of this entitled person evolved from a "subject"...to a "Citizen"...to "Comrade".

The Constitution...omg...."We the people"...an idea stolen from socialist governemnts. It isnt an accident that the Constitution doesnt beging with some other term such as "We the solitary individuals". But it doesnt stop there....if we expand the concept of socialism just slightly...to include more then just the redistribution of money...but the redistribution of power (power = money)...the U.S. Senate is a perfect example of a non-democratic instutiion..it is in fact a socialist institution.

When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it’s 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation’s population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it’s so hard to get anything done in Washington?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

You could not be more wrong. Read the Constitution. Separation of powers is so the government cannot get too big and too powerful. A system of checks and balances.

Nowhere does it mention your right to take anothers property for your own happiness. No redistribution of wealth. Nothing about your right to free healthcare, free housing, free food stamps and so on.

Socialism will always fail. Capitalism will always win out. Even in devout communist countries there is capitalism knows as the black market. I have a product/service you want and the government cannot provide. You will pay my asking price unless you find it somewhere else cheaper. Its called supply and demand. Socialism can never overcome that.

What a delusional loonytune you are Vince(1).

So people call your master a socialist, and now you are defending socialism like it is a part of our heritage we are not familiar with.

Go back to the circus you came from you Anti-American Mexicano clown.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

The concept of socialism didn't exist during the time of the founding fathers. However, some of the leanings of the Federalists, such as a dominant central goverent, might seem socialist. But, really, they were more a reflection of the times when governments were managed by a ruling class...not the people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I was going to write the same thing as WTL...socialism as a governing concept didn't exist when the Americans wrote their Constitution/Declaration.

A lot of right-wingers in the US are very confused about a social state (i.e. socialism). The US is socialist to a degree (albeit lower than in Europe). Soviet Russia was socialist antipode to the US at the time but on the same ruler(i.e. opposite sides of the same measurement - not different systems - the Soviets were never really communist - though they proclaimed themselves as communists). Pure communism on a national scale has never existed just as pure capitalism hasn't.

A true communist state actually has a lot in common with anarchy. Both are free from any form of government. What sets the two apart is that communism works by the people working together for the common good (i.e. communal/community). The anarchist works individually for their own good free from the dictates of the community.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> A true communist state actually has a lot in
> common with anarchy.


This is true. The Soviet Union had the Politburo, which was essentially the ruling class. Far removed from the classless utopia envisioned by Marx.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WHat does the fact that socialism didnt exist have to do with it? Power = money...and theSenate redistributes power from populated staes to those less populated.

We do have a great socialist history...how about the great land give away of the midwest? How socialist can you get? Work the land a few years and it's yours.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> We do have a great socialist history...how about
> the great land give away of the midwest? How
> socialist can you get? Work the land a few years
> and it's yours.


First, the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the "great land giveaway" in the midwest. Second, the "great land give away" was to the railroads...CORPORATIONS...who then sold it to homesteaders for a profit. THAT's Socialism???

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > We do have a great socialist history...how
> about
> > the great land give away of the midwest? How
> > socialist can you get? Work the land a few
> years
> > and it's yours.
>
>
> First, the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with
> the "great land giveaway" in the midwest. Second,
> the "great land give away" was to the
> railroads...CORPORATIONS...who then sold it to
> homesteaders for a profit. THAT's Socialism???


First of all..the topic had been expanded to broder idea of our "heritage we are unaware of". Well...i would include a partnership between Corporations and Govt a form of Socialism... In fact what could be more socialist then a program of giving away land inorder to motivate corporations to behave in a certain way. Sounds like goivernment intervention into the economy to me.

Plus...please read up on the Homestead Act.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Plus...please read up on the Homestead Act.


You mean, like this section on "Fraud and Corporate Use?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act#Fraud_and_corporate_use

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Our Founding Fathers Were Socialists
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: July 30, 2010 12:12AM

Noticed the OP time of 12:12 am. Either he works 2nd shift (which I doubt) or is one of these unemployed, and might I add unemployable, geeked up nerd hermit trolls that has fucked himself up and reversed his internal clock.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Plus...please read up on the Homestead Act.
>
>
> You mean, like this section on "Fraud and
> Corporate Use?"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act#Fraud_a
> nd_corporate_use


What does that have to do with it? So there was abuse? What socialist program doesnt have an opportunity for fraud and abuse?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> What does that have to do with it? So there was
> abuse? What socialist program doesnt have an
> opportunity for fraud and abuse?


Also, what is socialist about giving land to private individuals? Socialists don't believe in private property. They believe in communal property. A socialist state would keep the property and compensate the farmers for working on the land. They wouldn't give the land to the farmers. You are confusing altruism for socialism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

If Vince(1) saw a fly land on a Baboon's ass, he would call it socialism. More so than that, he would recommend we do the same! He knows the truth about us all really being Babboon ass-eating flies because Vince has special sunglasses that see right through our reptilian skin and reveal our underlying socialsm.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

What Kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama? No Kind

Stanley Kurtz has decided that Barack Obama is a socialist — a case he makes in his forthcoming book: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. But what does socialism mean? Many Europeans call themselves socialist, but mean only that they support the mixed economies which every advanced country has, including the United States. Sweden, often thought of as either a socialist utopia or nightmare, depending upon your perspective, actually has a robust private economy — indeed, almost all production is in the hands of privately held companies, just like in the United States. Taxes are much higher than in our country — certainly on the wealthy — and are used to fund a far greater array of public goods and services. But that is only a difference of degree, not kind, from the policies of every developed country from Canada to Australia, and including all of Western Europe. Indeed, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and even Mitt Romney might be said to be socialist by this standard because they support government augmented programs to provide universal health insurance. And what about George W. Bush? After all, it was Bush who signed into law the Medicare Part D bill, the largest extension of the welfare state in American history. And Medicare is, in fact, a single payer system for the elderly.

Meyerson’s politics, similar to Harrington’s but with a particular interest in the support of the labor movement, have nothing to do with the fantasy that Kurtz has imputed to him, and if you don’t believe me, you can review his voluminous writings for yourself. If you’re a conservative, what you will find is the kind of political and economic program you will oppose, but nothing that remotely has anything to do with “the full nationalization of the economy.” Needless to say, Obama — somebody who has published a good deal for a politician and with his own pen — has never advocated such a program either. Or one can examine his time in the Illinois and U.S. Senate to investigate whether he ever proposed the nationalization of the American economy.

There’s a good essay to be written about the almost demented anxiety, verging on paranoia, that a mainstream American liberal named Barack Obama has evoked among American conservatives. Stanley Kurtz seems to be in a good position to write that essay — beginning perhaps with a long conversation with the face he sees in the mirror every morning.

http://www.frumforum.com/what-kind-of-a-socialist-is-barack-obama-no-kind

Redistribution of wealth to lower classes in society is not scoialism, hm maybe this Barrackum Oblahmum is onto something then.

This country is not perfect that's for sure!

Heck, we FORCEFULLY pay SOCIAL security taxes.

And WE(including pasty whites) NEVER OWN OUR LAND, because we pay property taxes every year, FOREVER.

So what's your point???



Once again Vince(1), your fooling nobody with your 'anon' posts.

If you don't like this America place, then find another country that prides itself on being socialist or communist, I'm sure you'll be happy and thrive there.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > What does that have to do with it? So there
> was
> > abuse? What socialist program doesnt have an
> > opportunity for fraud and abuse?
>
>
> Also, what is socialist about giving land to
> private individuals? Socialists don't believe in
> private property. They believe in communal
> property. A socialist state would keep the
> property and compensate the farmers for working on
> the land. They wouldn't give the land to the
> farmers. You are confusing altruism for socialism.


Thats not true...socialists believe in private property..it is communists who dont. WTL..Im ashamed, you are capable of so much better then this typical FFXU tripe.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2010 03:52PM by Vince(1).

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Redistribution of wealth to lower classes in
> society is not scoialism, hm maybe this Barrackum
> Oblahmum is onto something then.
>
> This country is not perfect that's for sure!
>
> Heck, we FORCEFULLY pay SOCIAL security taxes.
>
> And WE(including pasty whites) NEVER OWN OUR LAND,
> because we pay property taxes every year,
> FOREVER.
>
> So what's your point???
>
>
>
> Once again Vince(1), your fooling nobody with
> your 'anon' posts.
>
> If you don't like this America place, then find
> another country that prides itself on being
> socialist or communist, I'm sure you'll be happy
> and thrive there.

Tell me one tax you dont pay by force. If taxes are an example of a socialist state..then allow me another example of our long Socialist history. One of the first acts of Congress was to pass a Whiskey Tax...many in PA refused t pay...they in fact rebelled..thus the Whiskey Rebellion...well good olg GW (the socialist) sent in the militia and squashed toe rebellion. Thank god for our first socialaist president GW!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Just one? That's easy. But first PLEASE DON'T put words in my mouth, I NEVER SAID TAXES ARE AN EX. OF A SOCIALIST STATE. -thanks

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Sales tax.

See,I don't have to buy shit! I can NOT DRINK WISKEY, I can grow my own food, build my own car ect ect.

But Social Security Tax is FORCED.
So is PROPERTY TAX.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just one? That's easy. But first PLEASE DON'T
> put words in my mouth, I NEVER SAID TAXES ARE AN
> EX. OF A SOCIALIST STATE. -thanks


I didnt say you did...I said "if" and I didnt use you as a reference.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Wow (R)V - go off the deep end... much?

They founding fathers were attempting to avoid tyrannical and out of control central governments. They knew we needed to come together as an entity if we were to throw of the yoke of the English, but at the same time didn't want to become the English (or the French). They had thousands of years of examples of rule by kings, emperors, dictators, etc - and they were trying t come up with a form of central government that would always be accountable to the people, but could act FOR THE PEOPLE in times when a central authority was needed. Such as in times of war, when you couldn't manage an army by committee, or in creating treaties or agreements with other foreign governments that had impact on all the States.

The fact is that as we went through a number of crisis periods the form and power of our central government changed. The most pronounced change was due to the Civil War where the "independence" of the States ability to govern themselves was diminished. Over time the central government has attempted to add layer upon layer of rule and regulation on top of their control, mainly through use of the Commerce Clause to basically allow them to put in whatever kind of economic controls they wanted.

The point being - that over time, the US has become more socialist due to the economic controls put in place by the central government. But the original intent of the Founding Fathers was so far from "socialism" as we know it. Their original intent was freedom from tyranny - in particular where it impacted their religious life, or their ability to live free from government interference in activities that were considered "normal" in their day to day lives. What we have today is nothing like the original intent - in particular the ruling class that our Congressional representatives have become.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

wahhh..waahh..wahhh..it's all Congress's fault....what a bunch of Oscar Mayer bolagna.

And as far as your interpreation of American history..it certainly is one-sided (what's new)...from day one there were those who wanted a strong central government..and less you forget even George himself fell under the spell of the likes of Alexander Hamilton..a great American Socialist.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wahhh..waahh..wahhh..it's all Congress's
> fault....what a bunch of Oscar Mayer bolagna.
>
> And as far as your interpreation of American
> history..it certainly is one-sided (what's
> new)...from day one there were those who wanted a
> strong central government..and less you forget
> even George himself fell under the spell of the
> likes of Alexander Hamilton..a great American
> Socialist.

Whether they felt it or not - the original intent of the Constitution did NOT reflect the "socialist" agenda dumbshit.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

The redistribution of political power (political power = money) from populated states to unpopulated states (negating the one man one vote philosophy) that the U.S. Senate represents...is a socialist idea. So are the Bill of rights...which in totality says the majority may not vote awa the rights of a minority...any redistribution of money or power from the majority to the minorirty is a socialist philospohy....as well as a strengthend central government to protest the minority from the mob mentality of the majority.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Hey Vince(1),

you should be all for the electoral college. Geez, if it wasn't for that farse, and we just counted votes, then your hero-president wouldn't be in office.

Also to say two things are alike does NOT = the SAME

: )

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Despite recent propaganda espousing that our
> country was founded on the principal of the
> solitary citizen...a person who lifted him or
> herself by the effort and sweat of their brow...I
> say quite to the contrary. Ourfounding fathers
> were very comfortable with the concepts of
> socialism.
>
> Just look at the Declaration of
> Indenpendence....all that talk of entitlements to
> life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These
> entitlements were not only guaranteed to citizens
> (of the yet unformed government)...but to all
> people..well Men! Still a very revolutionary and
> communist ideal. The very concept of this
> entitled person generated a relatively new
> word...the citizen. The term citizen was in it's
> day equal to the communist title of comrade. You
> could say that at least the concept of this
> entitled person evolved from a "subject"...to a
> "Citizen"...to "Comrade".
>
> The Constitution...omg...."We the people"...an
> idea stolen from socialist governemnts. It isnt
> an accident that the Constitution doesnt beging
> with some other term such as "We the solitary
> individuals". But it doesnt stop there....if we
> expand the concept of socialism just slightly...to
> include more then just the redistribution of
> money...but the redistribution of power (power =
> money)...the U.S. Senate is a perfect example of a
> non-democratic instutiion..it is in fact a
> socialist institution.
>
> When our republic was created, the population
> ratio between the largest and smallest state was
> 13 to 1. Now, it’s 68 to 1. Because of the abuse
> of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less
> than 11 percent of the nation’s population can, in
> principle, block action supported by 59 senators
> representing more than 89 percent of our
> population. And you wonder why it’s so hard to get
> anything done in Washington?



YOU are INSANE!!!

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Vince(1),
>
> you should be all for the electoral college.
> Geez, if it wasn't for that farse, and we just
> counted votes, then your hero-president wouldn't
> be in office.
>
> Also to say two things are alike does NOT = the
> SAME
>
> : )


Please explain your electoral college comment.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Yes, I was wondering about that one myself.

Vince(1) Wrote:
>
> Please explain your electoral college comment.

As in; If you were to ELIMINATE the electoral college, and just tally up the votes.

But theoretically you would have to eliminate voter fraud also because THAT played a MAJOR role also, but the example given should suffice.

1 living legal citizen = 1 vote

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Still not tracking with you there...


Obama Popular Vote Margin Largest Ever for Non-Incumbent
by Nate Silver @ 1:16 PM

Here's an impressive-sounding statistic, even if it's mostly an artifact of population growth. Barack Obama's victory margin from November 4th now stands at 9,124,522 votes, and will probably grow a bit more once states like Illinois, New York and California finalize their counts.

This is the 6th largest victory margin of all time, and the largest ever by a non-incumbent.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-popular-vote-margin-largest-ever.html


Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As in; If you were to ELIMINATE the electoral
> college, and just tally up the votes.
>
> But theoretically you would have to eliminate
> voter fraud also because THAT played a MAJOR role
> also, but the example given should suffice.
>
> 1 living legal citizen = 1 vote

Let me be more 'clearer'.


Remember those cute little maps of the United States of America, and they colored in RED and BLUE.

There was more RED than BLUE.

How DON'T you understand my simple notion?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Because more people voted for Obama then McCain. You seemed to be making the argument that if we just counted votes McCain would have won. Help me out--under what scenario do you think McCain would have been elected?

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me be more 'clearer'.
>
>
> Remember those cute little maps of the United
> States of America, and they colored in RED and
> BLUE.
>
> There was more RED than BLUE.
>
> How DON'T you understand my simple notion?

Okay I'll help you out even though you answered your own question in the prior sentence. In the event that you count only VOTES, NO ELCTORAL COLLEGE.

What's funny is that your inability to comprehend what I said, the first couple times I said it, shows me why the liberals had NO problem getting you morons to vote that fuckpuppet into office.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Dear Troll...you are fucked up.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

You are right--I can't comprehend what you said. If you count only votes, Obama won. If you count just the electoral college votes Obama still won. It wasn't even close. Anyway, I give up.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay I'll help you out even though you answered
> your own question in the prior sentence. In the
> event that you count only VOTES, NO ELCTORAL
> COLLEGE.
>
> What's funny is that your inability to comprehend
> what I said, the first couple times I said it,
> shows me why the liberals had NO problem getting
> you morons to vote that fuckpuppet into office.

Thanks, but the credit goes to you guys. I mean, I would be nothing without you. You guys mame this all possible and your appreciation drives me ahead, and prepares me for another day of serving you, the people.

Now take your dick outta that goat and shave your scruffy ass already.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Voter,

You must be COLOR BLIND then. Obama really only won around MAJOR CITIES. (ahem where acorn was doing most of it's fraud)

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter,
>
> You must be COLOR BLIND then. Obama really only
> won around MAJOR CITIES. (ahem where acorn was
> doing most of it's fraud)


lol...what a joke...ACORN..the big bad voter registration machine. The white man's biggest fear...registered black voters. Sorrt Troll..you couldnt be more wrong...Obama's win was as wide as could be. But I must say you are the perfect republikan dupe...you are competing with RV for that title.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Yeah. A wide farse as can be.

And leave it to a liberal 'dupe' to make it into a race issue, like the white man cares if blacks vote, he just doesn't want special interest groups getting the black man to participate in an election when the MAJORITY of which NEVER voted before, just because A BLACK(ok) guy is running for president.

I see YOUR biggest fear Vince(1), and that would be THE WHITE MAN.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Major cities are where people live, for the most part. Are you really this obtuse? Btw, any mention of Acorn automatically disqualifies you as a serious person. You need to get with the times--we all know the Tides foundation is in control of everything!


Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Voter,
>
> You must be COLOR BLIND then. Obama really only
> won around MAJOR CITIES. (ahem where acorn was
> doing most of it's fraud)

Troll I agree with you a 100% we need to get rid of the electoral college. It should be every person gets a single vote that counts. If this were the case Gore would have been elected by a landslide back in 2000.

I see what you're saying when you look at the map and see all the red. But that is not representative of the population of the US. Most of those red areas are in rural or southerly states. So on the map it appears that the reds own the election. But when you do the counting of votes you'll find most of those red areas to be fairly low in terms of population.

Nonetheless, I detest the electoral college system and it's attendant gerrymandering - it's corrupt and doesn't give us all an equal vote.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll I agree with you a 100% we need to get rid
> of the electoral college. It should be every
> person gets a single vote that counts. If this
> were the case Gore would have been elected by a
> landslide back in 2000.
>
> I see what you're saying when you look at the map
> and see all the red. But that is not
> representative of the population of the US. Most
> of those red areas are in rural or southerly
> states. So on the map it appears that the reds
> own the election. But when you do the counting of
> votes you'll find most of those red areas to be
> fairly low in terms of population.
>
> Nonetheless, I detest the electoral college system
> and it's attendant gerrymandering - it's corrupt
> and doesn't give us all an equal vote.

That is because the Constitution and the framers were more concerned about State's rights. The Electoral College gives some advantage to smaller populace States since they could see a situation arising where large cities could sway entire elections and make it so smaller States would be completely ignored in elections. While the Constitution is based on PEOPLE, the idea was to create a central government with less power then the States, other than the few cases where it needed an ability to act for all. All these folks today who are going around trying to get States to pass laws that change how their Electoral votes are allocated to being based on the overall popular vote are doing their States a huge disservice, and giving even more power to the Federal government in the long run. Perhaps a better change would be to make it so each States Electoral College votes are awarded in the same manner - but that is why they left it up to each State to decide how they would allocate those votes. Our Federal elections have become so corrupt with special interests that they have made the larger problem.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2010 09:39AM by Registered Voter.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah. A wide farse as can be.
>
> And leave it to a liberal 'dupe' to make it into
> a race issue, like the white man cares if blacks
> vote, he just doesn't want special interest groups
> getting the black man to participate in an
> election when the MAJORITY of which NEVER voted
> before, just because A BLACK(ok) guy is running
> for president.
>
> I see YOUR biggest fear Vince(1), and that would
> be THE WHITE MAN.


So..you want some sort of a test to vote?

Have you voted before?
Are you voting just to support a black or other minority candidate?


NOoooooo..you have no race issues....do you? You want to livein 1920 when such questions could be asked. The truth is ANY reason a person decides to exercise their constitutional right to vote..is a good reason.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) wrote:
> The truth is ANY reason a person decides to exercise their constitutional right to vote..is a good reason.


Yeah right, even if they DO NOT EXIST, are DEAD, or MENTALLY RETARDED BUMS huh.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) wrote:
> > The truth is ANY reason a person decides to
> exercise their constitutional right to vote..is a
> good reason.
>
>
> Yeah right, even if they DO NOT EXIST, are DEAD,
> or MENTALLY RETARDED BUMS huh.


As if Republikams have never had any voter fraud....or intimidated people...or not counted chad votes.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll@AOL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince(1) wrote:
> > > The truth is ANY reason a person decides to
> > exercise their constitutional right to vote..is
> a
> > good reason.
> >
> >
> > Yeah right, even if they DO NOT EXIST, are
> DEAD,
> > or MENTALLY RETARDED BUMS huh.
>
>
> As if Republikams have never had any voter
> fraud....or intimidated people...or not counted
> chad votes.

Ah yes, the old 'well they probably did it too, so it is ok for us to do it' argument. Not that you have any proof whatsoever - but yeah (R)V - you go.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2010 04:54PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Troll@AOL Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Vince(1) wrote:
> > > > The truth is ANY reason a person decides to
> > > exercise their constitutional right to
> vote..is
> > a
> > > good reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah right, even if they DO NOT EXIST, are
> > DEAD,
> > > or MENTALLY RETARDED BUMS huh.
> >
> >
> > As if Republikams have never had any voter
> > fraud....or intimidated people...or not counted
> > chad votes.
>
> Ah yes, the old 'well they probably did it too, so
> it is ok for us to do it' argument. Not that you
> have any proof whatsoever - but yeah (R)V - you
> go.


Fuck you...as if there is a bit of evidence against ACORN. They have been investigated every which way...and nada of any substance. Now it's on to the new black panther party...oooohh..scarey black people.....

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck you...as if there is a bit of evidence
> against ACORN. They have been investigated every
> which way...and nada of any substance. Now it's
> on to the new black panther party...oooohh..scarey
> black people.....


Awwww... poor (R)V.

You know, it is amazing how much folks keep darky down. Why, just to require a person can read or write to allow for voting is so repressively racist isn't it? So instead of embracing a standard that would make it meaningful to make sure all your children and others learn to read and write properly due to it's importance in their lives - instead it is used as a tool by folks purporting to support minorities to show how the white man wants to keep them down. Brilliant argument there. I suppose if everyone knew how to read and write, they might be able to question what their manipulators are trying to keep from them - something like a meaningful heritage. I think the Catholic church (or maybe it was the Jewish Orthodoxy before them) used to have that kind of policy in old Europe - where women and other minorities were not even allowed to learn how to do things like that - I mean look at how they got once they were allowed to attend school!!

If we actually made it 'normal' that to vote you need to be able to read and write, and build in ways to handle circumstance where folks cannot legitimately do either (they are blind, deaf, no hands, etc) there would be much less chance of anyone accusing anyone of voter fraud or intimidation on either side. But that would be too easy, and it makes much more sense to accuse folks of voter intimidation or suppression tactics when they start looking to require some minimal standards for actually casting a vote. I suppose it is much better to keep in place policies that make it easier for parents to not worry when their kids are failing in school or not going to school. Also a policy like that would make it so immigrants would be more likely to make an effort to integrate with society and language issues since they would want to vote and make a difference.

I get the arguments as to why in the past it was considered bad form to have litmus tests like that, when black people had little access to good schools, but these days that argument is entirely moot. What it would do today is give legal immigrants a bit more incentive to learn to read, write and speak English - but that would be too much to ask I am sure.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2010 05:16PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fuck you...as if there is a bit of evidence
> > against ACORN. They have been investigated
> every
> > which way...and nada of any substance. Now
> it's
> > on to the new black panther
> party...oooohh..scarey
> > black people.....
>
>
> Awwww... poor (R)V.
>
> You know, it is amazing how much folks keep darky
> down. Why, just to require a person can read or
> write to allow for voting is so repressively
> racist isn't it? So instead of embracing a
> standard that would make it meaningful to make
> sure all your children and others learn to read
> and write properly due to it's importance in their
> lives - instead it is used as a tool by folks
> purporting to support minorities to show how the
> white man wants to keep them down. Brilliant
> argument there. I suppose if everyone knew how to
> read and write, they might be able to question
> what their manipulators are trying to keep from
> them - something like a meaningful heritage. I
> think the Catholic church (or maybe it was the
> Jewish Orthodoxy before them) used to have that
> kind of policy in old Europe - where women and
> other minorities were not even allowed to learn
> how to do things like that - I mean look at how
> they got once they were allowed to attend
> school!!
>
> If we actually made it 'normal' that to vote you
> need to be able to read and write, and build in
> ways to handle circumstance where folks cannot
> legitimately do either (they are blind, deaf, no
> hands, etc) there would be much less chance of
> anyone accusing anyone of voter fraud or
> intimidation on either side. But that would be too
> easy, and it makes much more sense to accuse folks
> of voter intimidation or suppression tactics when
> they start looking to require some minimal
> standards for actually casting a vote. I suppose
> it is much better to keep in place policies that
> make it easier for parents to not worry when their
> kids are failing in school or not going to school.
> Also a policy like that would make it so
> immigrants would be more likely to make an effort
> to integrate with society and language issues
> since they would want to vote and make a
> difference.
>
> I get the arguments as to why in the past it was
> considered bad form to have litmus tests like
> that, when black people had little access to good
> schools, but these days that argument is entirely
> moot. What it would do today is give legal
> immigrants a bit more incentive to learn to read,
> write and speak English - but that would be too
> much to ask I am sure.


STFU racist!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> STFU racist!

And your response - exactly in form. Nothing I spoke to had anything to do with race dumbshit. But then that is why you are now (R)V - isn't it.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Every citizen...literate or illeterate deserves to vote...other accomodations besides disenfranchisement can be made. But alas that would meet your true motive.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

So you also advocate the mentally retarded voting.

YOU are trying to convince us that you are retarded, huh Vince(1).

That's what this is all about.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you also advocate the mentally retarded
> voting.
>
> YOU are trying to convince us that you are
> retarded, huh Vince(1).
>
> That's what this is all about.


Rephrase your question dropping it's cruelty and ignorance. Then I will answer.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.