T1B

What major changes do want to see...

I want you guys to stop harassing me because I'm gay and a lawyer.


Why do you hate America?

Smackie, if America truly wants a united front tax revolt, there's only way way to get it done: porn!

You wanna reach tax paying Americans? Spam their porn. Let the entire nation of porn watchers know that come next April nobody pays their taxes.

Blacks, whites, Mexicans, Asians...and especially Scandinavians.

You spam those goat fucking porn sites, the Big 'Uns sites for the midwesterners, the Disgustingly Fat Cellulite Booty sites...I'm telling ya', you'll reach everyone.

The next step? Once you've got everyone's attention, you threaten them all with...NO MORE PORN!

That's right. Either we take back this country, or you have to go fuck your wife, or your sister, or your Chevy's tail pipe, or your goat.

See, most of these grand plans of ours involve the need for too many people to get on board. The genius in this plan is all we need to do is round up enough heads of porn industries, and we appeal to their patriotism. Or, we threaten them with fat chicks. Fat lesbian chicks, with garden shears.

Far fetched? Of course it is, but then so was a round planet and a Boston Red Sox World Series victory, and look at us now.

Regarding your initial take, well said, Van. Little to quibble with here other than offering up the Fly Over perspective on the Electoral College.

While I can certainly appreciate the one man, one vote sympathy, our EC system actually forces the disingenuous, lying, shit-bird bastards who seek to lead this country to engage in political discourse in places other than New York, Philly, Chicago, Houston, and El Lay.

Despite the Obama machine out-spending McCain 4-1, bell-wether Missouri remained red, bucking a trend for picking the presidential winner that had held fast for well over 50 years. Something to be said, I suppose, about a population-base capable of distinguishing between the greater of two charlatans. Still, the popular vote would have easily split the Electorate. Instead, McCain was able to comfortably pad his defeat with the 11 votes we were able to contribute.

To hell with this. Count me in as a Conscientious Dissenter. I’m sick of having to hold my nose when I vote and to have to choose between “the lesser of two evils” every four years.

What mvscal said: Every president since TR has taken a solid, square dump on the Constitution. Of course, they've all had help: Enabled by a power-hungry, special-interest-driven Congress quick to fling little balls of legislative poo at the American electorate and effectively change the way we live; and a feckless judiciary that cannot resist the temptation to do a bit of legislating of its own from the Bench, nor has the collective sack to cast out 9/10ths of the horseshit Congress passes as being blatantly unconstitutional.

Lemme know if any of you fellers need barrel staves or pitchforks. We actually use 'em out here in these parts....

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:mvscal's proposition runs the risk of .... prison ?

What revolution doesn't?

True. But obviously the revolutionary has a stake in something. The revolutionary is "revolting" to improve the quality of his/her life and the life of their family.

What the fuck good does it do to rot in prison for not paying taxes while one's family winds up on the dole - sucking off the welfare state ? In case you haven't noticed, there's a host of "revolutionaries" in prison right now whose families are on the dole. "Revolutionaries" who do not believe the government has a right to wage a war on "drugs", revolutionaries who did not sit idly by while police harassed them, "political prisoners". At least that's how they perceive themselves. To you and most people they are nothing but law breakers.

Where's the line ?

Over 50% of "We the people" believe in what the current administration is doing. I'm not one of them but I know we have the capability of waging a "revolution" in 2010 and 2012.

Who says third party candidates can't get in ?

Truman, I see your point, but the reality is the system is genuinely ruinous when a candidate can simply take all of California's massive electoral college vote simpy by being a Democrat, which is what we saw in '08.

Simply by being a Democrat he will take the Bay Area, the greater L.A. County region and the Sacramento region. With California becoming more and more latino, this will only get worse.

The entire rest of the state is completely ignored, as you describe, only it's getting ignored because of this current Winner Takes All system. I'm sure the same thing holds true vis a vis NYC and New York state, and Chicago and Illinois.

Simply be a Democrat, and you'll carry the entire electoral haul from these huge electoral states. The rest of the state's votes will never matter, because the Democratic candidate will automatically carry the big cities.

California's unheard voters are simply too numerous to ignore.

In other states, where simply being a Republican insures victory, same deal. The other side's votes still deserve to count.

Tom wrote:Who says third party candidates can't get in?

Modern history, an understanding of the political machinery required to get elected and basic common sense, that's who.

If this last election proved anything, it proved, if you can whine the loudest, scream the loudest, be patient, be an "activist" and organize communities, you can win.

No need to go off the deep end. Just think more strategically. The side that won has been thinking and acting this way for a long time. They paid their dues. Sure, there were a few domestic terrorists in the lot, sure there's a host that can be said negative about them - but they won.

Using the tactics outlined by Saul Alinsky. Educate yourself about them, fight fire with fire. Don't be a "coward" as the Attorney General said. Childish people lacking brains will label you all kinds of things - as they too were labelled. But they perservered, raised the cash, infilitrated an entire infrastructure (Schools, Unions, Entertainment Sector, you name it they spread like a human version of the Mydoom internet worm).

It's going to take time. The more the shit hits the fan, the more things will, balance out.

To quote one of our O.G. revolutionaries - in a symbolic sense - "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes". I'm not so sure we're at the point for illegal tactics to be necessary.

Oh and Van, by third party candidates "get(ting) in" I meant have the third party infiltrate the major parties .... knowwhaddimean Vern ? Worked for the socialists infilitrating both Republican and Democratic party.

Abolish corporate personhood.

End of thread.

I'm so clever.

88 wrote:8. English shall be the sole official language of the United States.

Vapid racist fuckhole. --TVO

14. Every able-bodied citizen of the United States shall serve at least two years as a member of the armed forces or in a Community Service Program established by Congress by age 25.

In your dreams.

88, why do we even need the electoral college? What possible purpose do they serve, and what argument can be made against one person, one vote?

Smackie Chan wrote:

mvscal wrote:I registered Libertarian for a few years, but they're a complete joke. All chiefs and no indians. Totally disorganized.

I used to routinely vote Libertarian. If their ideas and platform are sound but there's a problem with its leadership, that should be easier to overcome than starting a new party from scratch. Does it need to be dumbed down to recruit more "indians"? Sounds like its leadership needs to be replaced with individuals who have stronger organizational skills.

Let's move in and take over.

I keep telling youse: These Folks aren't really any nuttier than the D's or the R's

I would think Smackie would be a charter member

88 wrote:9. Every bill passed by Congress shall contain only one subject.

Which would only lead to bills being named "Economic Bill" or "Foreign Policy Bill" and whatever being tucked in under that general name.

14. Every able-bodied citizen of the United States shall serve at least two years as a member of the armed forces or in a Community Service Program established by Congress by age 25.

Great idea that would solve a lot of problems, but will never happen.

What do you mean it will never happen ? As it relates to the military, up until 35-40 years ago it was a reality. As for the Community Service "Corps" or what have you, they're talking about it and with the current administration and heavy democrat majority in congress - it will probably happen. Rahm Emmanuel's dream might come true.

Tom In VA wrote:What do you mean it will never happen ? As it relates to the military, up until 35-40 years ago it was a reality. As for the Community Service "Corps" or what have you, they're talking about it and with the current administration and heavy democrat majority in congress - it will probably happen. Rahm Emmanuel's dream might come true.

I still don't see it happening. Too much opposition on the other side of the aisle.

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

88 wrote:9. Every bill passed by Congress shall contain only one subject.

Which would only lead to bills being named "Economic Bill" or "Foreign Policy Bill" and whatever being tucked in under that general name.

A lot of state constitutions have provisions such as this. Ohio's reads as follows:

Article II, Section 15 wrote:(D) No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. No law shall be revived or amended unless the new act contains the entire act revived, or the section or sections amended, and the section or sections amended shall be repealed.

The language of such an amendment would need to be clear, so the SCOTUS would not be able to free Congress from its intent.

This would end all earmarks and pork, unless a majority of Congress agreed to it. And then, it would be their ass if they did. Accountability, my friend.

And what planet are you on if you think that members of Congress would put themselves in such an accountable situation?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:What do you mean it will never happen ? As it relates to the military, up until 35-40 years ago it was a reality. As for the Community Service "Corps" or what have you, they're talking about it and with the current administration and heavy democrat majority in congress - it will probably happen. Rahm Emmanuel's dream might come true.

I still don't see it happening. Too much opposition on the other side of the aisle.

So. It didn't stop the Stimulus packages. The "other side of the aisle" is a limp dick right now.

Van wrote:88, why do we even need the electoral college? What possible purpose do they serve, and what argument can be made against one person, one vote?

what ^^^^ said.

the EC may have been a good idea a few hundred years ago where a popular vote for for anything higher than maybe the county level would have been a logistical nightmare.

That reason is no longer valid. The arguements about small state representation is bullshit as well.

It still exist for one reason. It is used as a perk for party hacks. It makes the process more managable by the 2 parties and makes infiltration by 3rd parties more difficult. The worst part of all is the winner take all nature that most states use. This policy effectively disenfranchises millions. Why the fukk should my vote for a candidate carry zero weight because my candidate did not win a majority in my state?

Tom In VA wrote:What do you mean it will never happen ? As it relates to the military, up until 35-40 years ago it was a reality.

Not really. There was a draft, of course, but not everyone got drafted.

Btw, rack the calls for the abolition of the Electoral College. For those who advocate for the existence of a third party, the Electoral College is the single biggest impediment to a third party viable on a national -- as opposed to local, or at best, statewide -- level.

Smackie Chan wrote: What major changes do want to see this country undergo, and how do you suggest they be made?

Overturn the Wickard/Gonzales line of cases.

Any other questions Dolt?

mvscal, go ahead and tell us why we still should use the EC system...

The reasoning seems to go, "folks are too stupid to choose their leaders directly".

One must wonder why that argument is made alongside arguments against sensible gun control...

What's the real difference between "choosing our leaders directly" and totaling up each state's votes and awarding the entirety of that state to the majority vote getter?

Either way, it's still predicated on counting the individual votes.

The EC is superfluous, at best.

Van wrote:The EC is superfluous, at best.

You're an idiot.

Sin,
Tilden, Cleveland, Gore

mvscal wrote: Because we have a Federal system of government. What part of that are any of you idiots struggling to comprehend?

You don't understand what it means, so why should Van understand it seeing as he is only slightly smarter than you?

Van wrote:mvscal, go ahead and tell us why we still should use the EC system...

Because abolishing it would be a huge kick in the balls to the neocon movement, to which he is a sack-swallowing follower.

Smackie Chan wrote:Let's assume you're right - that Libertarianism is the answer. This should be an easier solution than creating a new party, since it's already established and has been around for awhile. What'll it take to get Joe Sixpack to come around to your way of thinking and throw his support behind it? How can we raise the party from perennial also-ran to true contender?

You should be asking all these important questions to Tim Tebow.

mvscal wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:However, the Libertarians do a shitty job of getting their message out.

I registered Libertarian for a few years, but they're a complete joke. All chiefs and no indians. Totally disorganized.

How many times did Ron Paul run for President as Libertarian? 2 or 3? No one knows that. He runs under Republican this past year and it's the first time many ever heard his name outside of Lake Jackson, TX.

mvscal, how do you figure what you descibed isn't what we're already experiencing? As it currently stands the big cities are already electing our president, and the votes from the rural counties are already being rendered completely moot.

You live in this fucking state. I'm pretty damn sure that if you voted at all you didn't vote for Obama, yet your state's inclusion in the electoral process says you did. All 55 (or 57, or whatever it is now) delegates from your state went to Obama, and that was almost entirely due to the overwhelming majority Obama carried in our big cities.

You don't think NYC determines the state of New York's aggregate vote, or Chicago, for Illinois? You don't think those states, like California, have rural populations? Populations who, by and large, likely didn't vote for Obama?

Did any of their votes count? No, they didn't. Their votes, their states, went into the ledger as 100% Obama's.

Whether or not we're a federal Republic or not is irrelevant. We have the ability to change how we conduct our elections, through the amendment process. We did it with the women's vote and we can do it again, now, by going to one person-one vote.

There is no valid argument against doing so. The reasons for the EC and the giving of an entire state due to a simple majority are no longer applicable, not in our modern society.

Moreso, you were the one who suggested we blow the whole thing up and start overt, as the only viable option for fixing what ails us.

Great. While doing so, why in the fuck would we cling to such an antiquated and archaic bit of nonsense as the EC?? That ought to be one of the very first things that gets blown the fuck up, once the change comes.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You don't understand what it means,

Link?

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewto ... 8&start=60

Van wrote:mvscal, how do you figure ... gets blown the fuck up, once the change comes.

Fiddle while Rome burns much?

Van wrote:mvscal, how do you figure what you descibed isn't what we're already experiencing? As it currently stands the big cities are already electing our president, and the votes from the rural counties are already being rendered completely moot.

You live in this fucking state. I'm pretty damn sure that if you voted at all you didn't vote for Obama, yet your state's inclusion in the electoral process says you did. All 55 (or 57, or whatever it is now) delegates from your state went to Obama, and that was almost entirely due to the overwhelming majority Obama carried in our big cities.

You don't think NYC determines the state of New York's aggregate vote, or Chicago, for Illinois? You don't think those states, like California, have rural populations? Populations who, by and large, likely didn't vote for Obama?

Did any of their votes count? No, they didn't. Their votes, their states, went into the ledger as 100% Obama's.

Whether or not we're a federal Republic or not is irrelevant. We have the ability to change how we conduct our elections, through the amendment process. We did it with the women's vote and we can do it again, now, by going to one person-one vote.

There is no valid argument against doing so. The reasons for the EC and the giving of an entire state due to a simple majority are no longer applicable, not in our modern society.

Moreso, you were the one who suggested we blow the whole thing up and start overt, as the only viable option for fixing what ails us.

Great. While doing so, why in the fuck would we cling to such an antiquated and archaic bit of nonsense as the EC?? That ought to be one of the very first things that gets blown the fuck up, once the change comes.

You are having a conversation with mvscal that required you to type all of this? Somali pirates would love to negotiate with a jibbering dickfish like you. The hostages would be dead and they'd be getting their dick sucked by mvscal over a Mai Thai, while you'd still be trying to rationalize with these fucks over a radio that had been swallowed by a sea turtle after being thrown overboard.

mvscal wrote:How does allowing the half dozen or so largest cities choose the President benefit the rest of the nation?

A common misperception among those who oppose a popular vote, but erroneous nonetheless.

You need to get to the nine most populous states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey) to get a majority of the population. You can get to an electoral majority with the eleven most populous states (above nine plus North Carolina and Georgia).

So the difference between a popular majority and an electoral majority is essentially the population of North Carolina and Georgia -- not hugely significant, statistically speaking, when compared to the country as a whole. And here's the topper: all of those states have winner-take-all systems for awarding electoral votes (in fact, only Nebraska and Maine have a proportional system for their electoral votes). If you're looking at the most populous parts of the country determining the outcome of the Presidential election, which is the more likely scenario: a candidate winning relatively scant majorities in each of the eleven largest states; or a candidate receiving a unanimous, or nearly unanimous, vote of each of the nine most populous states?

The more populous states get fewer electoral votes per capita than do the smaller states, but because of winner-take-all, they actually have a greater say in determining the outcome of Presidential elections than they would in a strict popular vote system.