Hypocritical Kool-aiders

[Guest Loki]

Absolutely agree the time to change it is now, too bad we have no legislators with a backbone or a president who really believes in democracy.  If he did he'd be prposing an amendment to elimnate the electoral college instead of the silly ones he does propose,

My understanding is it was intended to balance things when there were few states and it was an attempt to equalize them. 

What balance does it create today that is better than having a truly democratic election and letting the people decide?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The balance created is by not allowing the most densely populated regions to dictate policy for the entire country. While in MOST cases this would be effective, could you imagine politicians placating the major cities for votes, and ignoring other parts of the country? Because I sure can.

Besides, California holds 54 electoral votes, almost 20% of what is needed to win election. California hasn't voted Republican since Reagan. If you can't win a national election when spotted the first 20% of votes needed, perhaps the problem is not the electoral college. HMMMMM????? Let's not forget NY which is also Democratic 98% of the time.

[Guest Patriot]

Crazy?  Nah............we just like to remind you wankers that your alleged champion of democracy cowboy wasn't elected by a truly democratic process and even though he likes proposing amendments he's too much of a wanker to propose an amendment that would correct that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wah, Wah, Boo, Hoo.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Clinton absolutely deserved censure for his perjury but I don't believe that alone warrants removal from office according to the Constitution.  The impeachment was just a bi-partisan dog & pony show.

"LOTS of comjecture,,but no evidence"?  HOW do you supply evidence that something doesn't exist?  That's an old lawyer's trick.

There's been evidence in memos that Bush was warned by the CIA that the story of seeking uranium in Africa was wrong yet he used it in a State of the Union Address.

Ideally we'd be blessed with a leader who was truthful but that seems to be an idea that's come and gone.  Given a choice between one who lies about his sex life and one who lies about reasons for going to war I know which one I'd choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We went to war because of 9/11. As Bush said then, "we're going to drain the swamp". We couldn't clearly identify if Sadam was involved in 9/11 but we knew he was a bad guy that had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. We also believed he was at least providing assistance to the terrorists. Facing the need to respond to 9/11, Bush did the right thing, he went after the obvious bad guy, the first step in "draining the swamp". Afganistan and Pakistan are also part of the swamp and they're being drained also. We're in for the long haul against global terrorism, it had to start somewhere, Iraq was the best place to start it. I don't think Kerry or Gore would have had the backbone to take the necessary action that Bush took. I'm thankful Bush was president when 9/11 occurred.

[Guest BushBacker]

Crazy?  Nah............we just like to remind you wankers that your alleged champion of democracy cowboy wasn't elected by a truly democratic process and even though he likes proposing amendments he's too much of a wanker to propose an amendment that would correct that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Wasn't elected by a truly democratic process" ?? That doesn't bother me. Does it bother you ??

[Guest Patriot]

WHAT in hell would you know about judgement?

Bush said several years ago we'd established a program to track terrorist finances and their financial infrastructure and now he's whining about the Times printing something about it.  And if the terorists hadn't assumed all along this was being done there's no problem, they're dumber than we thought.

If you want to see one of the big hypocrites go look in a mirror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go read your NY Times and drink your Kool-aid.

[Guest Guest]

The balance created is by not allowing the most densely populated regions to dictate policy for the entire country.  While in MOST cases this would be effective, could you imagine politicians placating the major cities for votes, and ignoring other parts of the country?  Because I sure can.

Besides, California holds 54 electoral votes, almost 20% of what is needed to win election.  California hasn't voted Republican since Reagan.  If you can't win a national election when spotted the first 20% of votes needed, perhaps the problem is not the electoral college.  HMMMMM?????  Let's not forget NY which is also Democratic 98% of the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice attempt at rationalization but:

I don't think it's valid assumption CA and NY would go democratic, I think there's still enough sense that the man counts for something.

And if one beats another in CA by say 100 votes I don't think he should get 54 electoral votes, I'd much prefer that EVERY vote carry the same weight and the president be elected by the people.

Look at the '04 election, regardless of the outcome why should Ohio's votes be enough to swing the decision one way or another? In a close election there will always be one or a few critical states and I don't like the fact the entire election could hinge on a few local pork barrel projects that influence the vote and affect the national scene.

[Guest Guest]

"Wasn't elected by a truly democratic process" ??  That doesn't bother me. Does it bother you ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you back a man who claims to be spreading democracy and by your own admission it doesn't bother you that he wasn't elected by a truly democratic process? Seems to be more than a little trace of hypocrisy there.

It does bother me, I truly believe he is creating more problems for the country than he is solving. That being the case it would be nice if he was at least the choice of the people who will have to deal with and pay the bill for those problems

[Guest Guest]

We went to war because of 9/11. As Bush said then, "we're going to drain the swamp".  We couldn't clearly identify if Sadam was involved in 9/11 but we knew he was a bad guy that had killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. We also believed he was at least providing assistance to the terrorists. Facing the need to respond to 9/11, Bush did the right thing, he went after the obvious bad guy, the first step in "draining the swamp". Afganistan and Pakistan are also part of the swamp and they're being drained also. We're in for the long haul against global terrorism, it had to start somewhere, Iraq was the best place to start it. I don't think Kerry or Gore would have had the backbone to take the necessary action that Bush took.  I'm thankful Bush was president when 9/11 occurred.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The man who claims to be a 'uniter' can't even manage to unite his backers. Some claim we invaded Iraq because of 9/11 and some claim Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Just another flip-flop?

Saying Iraq ws the best place to start is speculation at best. Terrorist groups respect no borders and concentrating so heavily on one country only gives them an easiere time in others. Al qaeda's known to have operatives in at least 40 countries.

[Guest Loki]

Nice attempt at rationalization but:

I don't think it's valid assumption CA and NY would go democratic, I think there's still enough sense that the man counts for something.

And if one beats another in CA by say 100 votes I don't think he should get 54 electoral votes, I'd much prefer that EVERY vote carry the same weight and the president be elected by the people.

Look at the '04 election, regardless of the outcome why should Ohio's votes be enough to swing the decision one way or another?  In a close election there will always be one or a few critical states and I don't like the fact the entire election could hinge on a few local pork barrel projects that influence the vote and affect the national scene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree, it was an OUTSTANDING effort to rationalize; it included historical fact as well as proven theory. These states historically vote as I spelled out, 100% of the time, NO, but enough to make that argument valid. You can disagree, I'm a big boy, but when presented with hard numbers, you can't just dismiss the argument.

[Guest Doctor BushBacker]

So, you back a man who claims to be spreading democracy and by your own admission it doesn't bother you that he wasn't elected by a truly democratic process?  Seems to be more than a little trace of hypocrisy there.

It does bother me, I truly believe he is creating more problems for the country than he is solving.  That being the case it would be nice if he was at least the choice of the people who will have to deal with and pay the bill for those problems

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the symptoms of drinking too much Kool-aid is paranoia. It generally manifests itself by becoming totally consumed with the electoral process. My advice is to stop with the Kool-aid, put a large poster of Bush over your bed, buy Ann Coulter's book and stop reading the NY Times.

[Guest Guest]

One of the symptoms of drinking too much Kool-aid is paranoia. It generally manifests itself by becoming totally consumed with the electoral process.  My advice is to stop with the Kool-aid, put a large poster of Bush over your bed, buy Ann Coulter's book and stop reading the NY Times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never knew you coild get a Phd in Absurdity.

[Guest Guest]

I disagree, it was an OUTSTANDING effort to rationalize; it included historical fact as well as proven theory.  These states historically vote as I spelled out, 100% of the time, NO, but enough to make that argument valid.  You can disagree, I'm a big boy, but when presented with hard numbers, you can't just dismiss the argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't say for sure they went for the democrats historically, maybe they just went for the better man ;o)

I just don't think it's a good process when a very small margin of the popular vote in a state can result in one candidate getting all the electoral votes, and thayt's regardless of what party it happens to be.

[Guest Guest]

One of the symptoms of drinking too much Kool-aid is paranoia. It generally manifests itself by becoming totally consumed with the electoral process.  My advice is to stop with the Kool-aid, put a large poster of Bush over your bed, buy Ann Coulter's book and stop reading the NY Times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kool aid maybe, drugs most definitely

[Guest WatchDog]

One of the symptoms of drinking too much Kool-aid is paranoia. It generally manifests itself by becoming totally consumed with the electoral process.  My advice is to stop with the Kool-aid, put a large poster of Bush over your bed, buy Ann Coulter's book and stop reading the NY Times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very poor doctoring, you failed to mention side effects of your proposed treatment can and usually do include delusions of grandeur and believing that merely saying something makes it a reality. In addition your obsession with Kool-Aid constantly undermines any degree of judgement you might possibly have.

[Guest Proud2Bkoolaid]

One of the symptoms of drinking too much Kool-aid is paranoia. It generally manifests itself by becoming totally consumed with the electoral process.  My advice is to stop with the Kool-aid, put a large poster of Bush over your bed, buy Ann Coulter's book and stop reading the NY Times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that what gets you going? A giant poster of Bush over your bed? I'm sure its right next to your Kool-Aid Man figure collection and a bottle of lotion. Keep those childish comments coming. It really makes you "BushBackers" look like highly educated individuals. What is it with the Kool-Aid obsession? Is it the bright colors that keep you amused?? I'm sure it wouldn't take much. I'll drink my Kool-Aid proudly while Star Bucks rapes you with their lattes.

**taking a swig in your name**

[Guest Patriot]

Is that what gets you going?  A giant poster of Bush over your bed?  I'm sure its right next to your Kool-Aid Man figure collection and a bottle of lotion.  Keep those childish comments coming.  It really makes you "BushBackers" look like highly educated individuals.  What is it with the Kool-Aid obsession?  Is it the bright colors that keep you amused??  I'm sure it wouldn't take much.  I'll drink my Kool-Aid proudly while Star Bucks rapes you with their lattes. 

**taking a swig in your name**

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, are you joining Cindy Sheehan and all the other Kool-aiders this week-end with their hunger strike ? I'm sure you'll have fun calling our troops murderers and demanding we surrender in Iraq.

[Guest BushBacker]

Is that what gets you going?  A giant poster of Bush over your bed?  I'm sure its right next to your Kool-Aid Man figure collection and a bottle of lotion.  Keep those childish comments coming.  It really makes you "BushBackers" look like highly educated individuals.  What is it with the Kool-Aid obsession?  Is it the bright colors that keep you amused??  I'm sure it wouldn't take much.  I'll drink my Kool-Aid proudly while Star Bucks rapes you with their lattes. 

**taking a swig in your name**

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a brain on drugs.

[Guest Guest]

Hey, are you joining Cindy Sheehan and all the other Kool-aiders this week-end with their hunger strike ?  I'm sure you'll have fun calling our troops murderers and demanding we surrender in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I don't agree with her tactics I've never heard Sheehan call the troops murderers, you imply she has/does. Either cite some FACTS for a change or find a tail pipe and act like Monica.

[Guest Guest]

This is a brain on drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess you think you're an expert from listening to that gas-bag Rush "Gimme Another Pill Please" Limbaugh. Of course in Jeb Bush world he can buy his way off a drug charge while in Dubya world Tommy Chong did 9 months in jail for selling a pipe, NO drugs involved.

Buncha hypocritical bastards.

[Guest Patriot]

I guess you think you're an expert from listening to that gas-bag Rush "Gimme Another Pill Please" Limbaugh.  Of course in Jeb Bush world he can buy his way off a drug charge while in Dubya world Tommy Chong did 9 months in jail for selling a pipe, NO drugs involved. 

Buncha hypocritical bastards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is your brain on drugs.

[Guest Patriot]

I guess you think you're an expert from listening to that gas-bag Rush "Gimme Another Pill Please" Limbaugh.  Of course in Jeb Bush world he can buy his way off a drug charge while in Dubya world Tommy Chong did 9 months in jail for selling a pipe, NO drugs involved. 

Buncha hypocritical bastards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

[Guest Patriot]

I guess you think you're an expert from listening to that gas-bag Rush "Gimme Another Pill Please" Limbaugh.  Of course in Jeb Bush world he can buy his way off a drug charge while in Dubya world Tommy Chong did 9 months in jail for selling a pipe, NO drugs involved. 

Buncha hypocritical bastards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cindy Sheehan is a puppet for the radical left. So are the "Jersey Girls", the 9/11 widows who go around blaming Bush for the attacks. They think they can say anything and get away with it because they lost a loved one. It's all BS, they've been "outed" as shills for the left.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Cindy Sheehan is a puppet for the radical left.  So are the "Jersey Girls", the 9/11 widows who go around blaming Bush for the attacks. They think they can say anything and get away with it because they lost a loved one. It's all BS, they've been "outed" as shills for the left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Didn't you just love to see the picture of Cindy Sheehan hugging Hugo Chavez. Good old democrat that Cindy, she really loves the U.S.

[Guest Guest]

Didn't you just love to see the picture of Cindy Sheehan hugging Hugo Chavez. Good old democrat that Cindy, she really loves the U.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I was MUCH more impressed by the picture of the cowboy and a Saudi walking through the White House grounds holding hands.

Cindy lost a son in service to the US and the cowboy bravely defended the skies of Alabama, I think Cindy deserves a little slack.

BTW, in another thread you praised Reagan for pulling us back from the brink of war and were asked BRINK by what standard? Your reply is conspicious by its absence. Just more blather with no facts.

[Guest Loki]

No, I was MUCH more impressed by the picture of the cowboy and a Saudi walking through the White House grounds holding hands.

Cindy lost a son in service to the US and the cowboy bravely defended the skies of Alabama, I think Cindy deserves a little slack.

BTW, in another thread you praised Reagan for pulling us back from the brink of war and were asked BRINK by what standard?  Your reply is conspicious by its absence.  Just more blather with no facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about Hill hugging Arafat's wife?