|
| T O P I C | |
|
Just sit and read... Quietly.
December 8th 2000, 10:59 CET by Andy Man sues porn site after wanking too hard... Well no, not really, but it's bound to happen sooner or later. For now, though, we'll have to make do with a touch of American legal culture arriving in Britain's schools. According to a report in the Times Educational Supplement, primary schools are banning traditional playground games due to fears of being sued. The games being banned include conkers (now classed as "offensive weapons"), rounders, British bulldog, three-legged races and skipping (because girls may fall over and hurt themselves). Bizarrely, football is also set to be banned, having been deemed "anti-social". A survey found that 57% of parents would seek compensation if their child was injured at school. One headmaster quoted in the report said he would prefer to "ban all playtimes, as they are a nightmare". The report's author, a University researcher who studied the breaktime activities of 1,000 children, concluded that playgrounds are becoming "barren, sterile and unimaginative". Hopefully we'll soon be back to the days when kids have nothing better to do than bully each other, get into fights and talk to the guy at the gate handing out free cigarettes. Much healthier than football. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
<b>kizu</b> (#63): <quote>In other words, yes: smaller states should have less "power", because then each voter has the same amount of power. </quote> Please consider that the US government isn't about protecting the people all the time. The whole point is to protect the states from out side forces and protect the states from each other (and yes protect the people from their state oppresing basic rights). Under that view it's right to allow the states to select the figure head of the government that represents them as a whole (the people still have the right to select the people that make the desisions both localy and in congres). The curent system was setup as a compramise between the two views (US Government protects all people, and US Government protects the states and the states protect the people). <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
Re: [25] WarrenMarshall *beating you to fucking death with sack of wet mice* Hack that. Re: All other posts recently *beating the fuck out of this dead electoral horse* |
|
Going solely by the popular vote means that every state and every vote in every state genuinely counts. Gore swept the Eastern Seaboard - look at the election return maps. If the president were determined by "square acres with a majority vote for candidate X" Bush would have far and away been the victor. It was the overimportance of small states and the all-or-nothing electoral college system operating in large diverse states that gave Gore the (ostensible) electoral college lead. Uhhh.... when people say small states, they mean small states by population, not acres. That's why New York despite being relatively small is such an important state to win, and Alaska despite being the biggest isn't as big of a concern with only 3 votes. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
None1: Don't confuse the federalism/confederatism argument with the completely different argument that spawned the electoral college, an argument that was laid out in intense detail in the Federalist Papers (which I'll be posting shortly.) The electoral college has nothing to do with protecting states from each other. Please to recall who was eligible to vote when all these documents were being drafted, and keep in mind the other big arguments that were going on at time: big states versus little states, Southern states vs. Northern states, industry vs. argiculture, classless society vs. caste society. Charlie: I'm sorry. You must have missed these classes in high school, but the "Eastern Seaboard" is on the side of the country with Boston and New York. There are a lot of LITTLE TINY STATES, some of whom have LITTLE TINY POPULATIONS. Alaska is a big country with a small population, Rhode Island is a little country with an even littler population than Alaska. But RI gets *at least 3 votes guaranteed* - one for their Representative, two for their Senators. There are a lot more people in California, but still only two Senators. The electorate is represented by their entire Congressional delegation, hence the vote of a single voter in RI has more power in terms of elector-representatives than a single vote in CA. Tell me, does the guy in RI really MEAN MORE to the nation? Yet because Gore basically ate the Eastern Seaboard, he managed to corner a market both small in terms of land and population but with disproportionately large political power - his campaign time in those states was spent much more efficiently than his time in California. Meanwhile Bush took lots of big states with smallish-to-medium populations whose political power was not as strong. I was commenting on the incredible dichotomy: how can a guy who ate such a large part of the country still only eat half the votes and less than half, barring Florida, of the electors? |
|
<quote>That's assuming, of course, that Gore does win the recount. With an election this tight, I wouldn't make a decision until about a week after the result come in. We've seen what happens if we decide in advance who we think won.</quote> True enough, and my fault for not stating such. *shrug* The whole thing is kinda like watching a bad car wreck, and the details like that slip my mind. :) |
|
On 12/12/00 at 6:43:06 PM, ChrisJohnson opened his/her mouth and said (#70): <quote>The whole thing is kinda like watching a bad car wreck, and the details like that slip my mind. :)</quote> To be honest, I haven't heard a more apt description. Hope you don't mind if I use it. -- It cultivates the mind, the spirit and the soul. And we must always cultivate the soul.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
kizu, I'm well aware of the east being full of small states with (generally) smaller populations than say California or Texas. BUT, those states compared to the midwest are doing just grand on population. However, you mentioned acerage as if that had any relevance to the electoral voting system. It has zero, so why bring it up? Charlie Wiederhold |
|
I was commenting on the incredible dichotomy: how can a guy who ate such a large part of the country still only eat half the votes and less than half, barring Florida, of the electors? Because farmland can't vote. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
Shut up, Charlie. You make my heart ache. |
|
<quote>To be honest, I haven't heard a more apt description. Hope you don't mind if I use it</quote> Not at all; feel free. The interesting thing about all of this is the coverage as much as anything. We were talking about the news coverage of it all here at work, and how the nightly news always have these intros to the stories like "As the nation waits on pins and needles, the Supreme Court deliberated its decision today..." Pins and needles? Really? Who exactly are they talking about? Because last I noticed, except for discussions like this, most of the people really stopped paying attention about two and a half days into it. The need to sensationalize it and try and make the viewers truly <b>believe</b> that it's so taxing on the average person's mind is near hilarious. Can you imagine what it'd b like if this were were happening during sweeps week? |
|
<quote>Shut up, Charlie. You make my heart ache. </quote> Yeah! No rational thought allowed! It makes baby Jesus cry! |
|
<b>#63</b> "kizu" wrote... <quote> Do you even know the history of the electoral college? No, of course not. Here's a quick lesson: it was installed so that The Clueless Masses couldn't win out over the Whims Of The Whigs. Madisonian democracy in general is obsessed with keeping power out of the hands of The Clueless Masses - relatively sound policy in colonial America, but much less so today when public education allows something like 85%-90% adult literacy. Without the all-or-nothing electoral college there would be no reason to concentrate campaigning in very large states, because each voter's vote actually does count. In some states they've hit upon a reasonable compromise: splitting the electoral college votes. In other words, yes: smaller states should have less "power", because then each voter has the same amount of power. That's populistic democracy - you know, the thing that democracy kind of aspires to be. <A href="http://opensource.planetcrap.com">But don't let your pathetic mewling ignorance get you down</A>, because American government is designed remarkably well to suit both goons and geniuses</quote> Ohh yes, literacy is bar I want for the people who decide my future. But thats hardly the point. Smaller states should not necessarily have less power. Otherwise, the larger states would abuse the smaller ones. We don't aspire to be a "populistic democracy". Not really, otherwise we wouldn't still have the electorial college. The "will of the people" isn't always such a good thing. Its condoned little things like... I don't know.. slavery, genocide, etc. etc. V<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b>kizu</b> (#69): <quote>Don't confuse the federalism/confederatism argument with the completely different argument that spawned the electoral college, an argument that was laid out in intense detail in the Federalist Papers (which I'll be <A href="http://opensource.planetcrap.com">posting</A> shortly.) The electoral college has nothing to do with protecting states from each other. Please to recall who was eligible to vote when all these documents were being drafted, and keep in mind the other big arguments that were going on at time: big states versus little states, Southern states vs. Northern states, industry vs. argiculture, classless society vs. caste society. </quote> None of the original reasons applied every a few years after the Federalist Papers where writen. It turned out to be a good thing anyway. Also look at this way the whole point of creating a stronger central government originaly was to prevent the problems caused under the articles of confederation (which was mostly fighting between states). Yes the primary reason where not releated to this, but it does make since that under a government that was setup to protect the states that the states should deside who heads the branch that enforces what the government desides. At one point I was for a direct vote, but the more reading I've done on the other side has changed my mind a great deal. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
"Wow, have you been talking to him? Where did you information come from? I know, I bet he said that in some interview. Do you know where I can read about it? There's no way for you to know that. While that answer fits your bias (don't deny it, everyone has one) the reason could just as easily have been that he didn't figure that recounting in New Hampshire would change who won, because Bush really did receive more votes. On the other hand, Gore might have felt that in Florida he received more votes, and that a full counting would show that he had won in Florida, not Bush. You can't know his motivations. Quit spreading untruths like that. Say it's your opinion, but don't present it as fact - because it's not." It's quite simple. The under vote count is higher than Bushes lead, Gore could win New hampshire. I doubt he would but why risk it? Especially when he's so hell bent on making sure every vote counts(HA!) and it would stop Bush from getting 270. It doesn't matter what Gore thinks he won. There's laws about changing the rules after an election and you can't have different standards in different counties. That violates equal rights laws. Gore lost Florida, it's time the bitch realizes it. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
<b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the question of popular vote vs. electoral vote discrepancies</quote> That is a non-issue here. The fact is that the popular vote means nothing as far as the determination of the Presidency is concerned. If you have not learned that in the last few weeks, then you are just not paying proper attention. The President is elected by the States, not the general populace. It is nice if those two number agree, but the popular vote is not a requirement. But, if you must have a 'majority' of some sort to make you feel better about it, then you can say that the President is elected by the majority of the states. George Bush won a majority of the States. Which brings me back to what my point was (which was not quoted, btw, it was a wholly original statement by me) in the first place. Al Gore has not ever once been elected President, George W. Bush has. Al Gore has never had the Florida majority. He has never been certified the winner of the Florida totals. Both candidates needed to win Florida in order to be presumed the winner. George Bush won Florida, and therefore is the presumed winner. And I am really tired of arguing that point. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be seemingly true allegations of Republican vote fraud in the case of illegally filled-in absentee ballots by Republican party workers. </quote> While there may have been inappropriate action taken by the canvassing boards, they do not constitute voter, either in common sense, or according to Florida Law. The fact that both the trial court, trial precedent, and the Fl. Supreme court agree with that assessment would tend to bear that out. What was decided was that while the actions taken by the Republicans with regards to the<i> applications</i> were not strictly legal, they did not affect the validity of the <i>ballots</i>. Florida precedent allows that if the ballot itself is otherwise admissable, mishandling of the application by the cancassing boards does not invalidate it. That is not voter fraud. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for the Secretary of State to deny the counting officials of whichever county the extra hour and a half in order to get their balloting numbers in (which she acknowledged that she knew they would need, but refused to allow it anyways, and then simultaneously trumpeting the cause of "making sure every vote is counted"), even though the actual deadline wasn't until 9 oclock the next morning. </quote> Agreed, there was no need for her to have done that. But then again, she should not have been forced to accept an extended dealine by the FLSC, who were all the while spouting babble about how they do not interfere in the execution of administrative functions by the appropriately elected public official assigned those duties. She should have certified on the 14th, according to the election law, which she was proscribed to uphold and execute in the first paragraph of the Florida Election Code itself. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need to question the Secretary of Sate herself. I mean can someone who is the fucking co-chair of the Bush campaign really be expected to be the slightest bit impartial? </quote> SHe was elected to do a job by the people of Florida. She was doing the job the way to was told to do the job by both the Legislature, and the FLSC - you don't like the result - so apparently she is a hack. Whatever. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for Guv'nuh Dubya to proclaim during the campaign how he trusts the states and the citizens to run things correctly -- and then argue that they can't be trusted to be able to count.</quote> He was not arguing that they could not count. He was arguing that they were not counting under any sort of legally enforcible standard, and that action itself violated the law. The USC agreed with him. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>There wouldn't be the need for the Governor to blast and proclaim the manual recount process as flawed and illegal -- even though he passed a law in Texas saying that in a case like this manual recounts are needed and required</quote> Texas law submits a standard. Florida law does not. <b><u>ChrisJohnson</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#43</b>, babbled the following: <quote>But I know for a fucking fact that Dubya didn't come anywhere near "winning" this election. If he did, none of this would be happeneing, and he wouldn't be so damn worried as to have everything happen as it has. </quote> This is all happening because Al Gore could not accept defeat. I will give you something here. AL Gore made a mistake in pursuing this the way he did. Had he allowed Florida to certify on time and then properly submitted a contest to the election, which is allowed under Florida law, he may very well have won it on an overturn. It is possible. What Al Gore did was force the entension of the protest period of the election, until there was no time left for the contest period. Had he gone to contest the election properly, the state would have had time to set standards where required, listen to arguments, decide on arguments, count, recount, verify the recount, go through the appeals process, and come to a conclusion. He might have won. He didn't do it that way, because (IMHO) he did not want to appear to have lost the election in the first place. He dragged us all down this road for appearances sake. Had he come out the other side of a proper contest, I do not doubt that he would have been accepted as the President, however onerous that might have been. BTW, most of the above is based on my interpretation of the court proceedings. You want quotes - read them yourself. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i> |
|
VeeSpike: I can see where you're coming from on everything except the Secretary of State's involvement. Simply because she is elected doesn't mean she should stay in her position when it's such a blatant conflict of interest. If she's basically the state's number one campaigner for one of the two candidates in question, she reallyshouldn't be incharge of impartiality. Hell, Jeb got out of the situation, she should have done the same. would it have made a difference? Probably not, and I fully acknowledge that, but it would have saved a whole hell of a lot of questionable goings-on and second-guessing. Not that anyone at the 'Crap ever second guesses anything. ;) As for this bit: <quote>He didn't do it that way, because (IMHO) he did not want to appear to have lost the election in the first place</quote> You may very well be right: http://www.cnn.com&story=breaking_news@2423705816/gore.html ;) (Please: note the smiley) |
|
Glad this entire show is over. The simpleton has won. Hurrah for Bush. |
|
Prize for Bob! |
|
What is it about this mindless, repetitive activity that reminds you of me? I don't like that you think about me so often. Dood.
|
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Just sit and read... Quietly.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|