Sorry it had to come to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN_nXee4-I

-C-

On 1/24/2012 11:00 AM, Country wrote:
Sorry it had to come to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN_nXee4-I

-C-

sure as hell would be a lot better than the illegal alien half breed, no
birth certificate having, worthless mother ****er we got now running it.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Steve Barker wrote in
:

On 1/24/2012 11:00 AM, Country wrote:
Sorry it had to come to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN_nXee4-I

-C-

sure as hell would be a lot better than the illegal alien half breed, no
birth certificate having, worthless mother ****er we got now running it.

You mean the newt?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/24/2012 2:09 PM, Han wrote:
Steve wrote in
:

On 1/24/2012 11:00 AM, Country wrote:
Sorry it had to come to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN_nXee4-I

-C-

sure as hell would be a lot better than the illegal alien half breed, no
birth certificate having, worthless mother ****er we got now running it.

You mean the newt?


uh, no. i mean RUNNING it. not running FOR it. The current jokester
in office.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 1/24/2012 2:09 PM, Han wrote:
Steve wrote in
:

On 1/24/2012 11:00 AM, Country wrote:
Sorry it had to come to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN_nXee4-I

-C-
sure as hell would be a lot better than the illegal alien half breed, no
birth certificate having, worthless mother ****er we got now running it.
You mean the newt?


I think he's talkin' about mit.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:35:44 -0600, Jim T wrote:

snip

You're obviously talking to a fence post.

I would vote for a fence post over a Canadian.

Jim T wrote:



If we learned anything from Bush lite it's: "It can always be worse."

Yep. We discovered that in the 2008 election.

On Jan 24, 3:34*pm, Jim T wrote:
On 1/24/2012 2:09 PM, Han wrote:

Steve *wrote in
m:

On 1/24/2012 11:00 AM, Country wrote:
Sorry it had to come to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN_nXee4-I

-C-
sure as hell would be a lot better than the illegal alien half breed, no
birth certificate having, worthless mother ****er we got now running it.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:27:57 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Jim T wrote:



If we learned anything from Bush lite it's: "It can always be worse."

Yep. We discovered that in the 2008 election.


Now you get a +1 w/ gold star.

On 1/24/2012 4:27 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Jim T wrote:

If we learned anything from Bush lite it's: "It can always be worse."
Yep. We discovered that in the 2008 election.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST86JM1RPl0

Everyone likes to play.

Steve Barker wrote in
:

On 1/24/2012 11:00 AM, Country wrote:
Sorry it had to come to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN_nXee4-I

-C-

sure as hell would be a lot better than the illegal alien half breed, no
birth certificate having, worthless mother ****er we got now running it.



Any wiggle room on your opinion there Steve? :-)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:45:24 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
wrote:

sure as hell would be a lot better than the illegal alien half breed, no
birth certificate having, worthless mother ****er we got now running it.



Any wiggle room on your opinion there Steve? :-)

Oh stop. I'm breaking out in laughter.

On 1/24/2012 9:01 PM, WW wrote:
Islam Zebra

But you're not a racist.

In article ,
Han wrote:


From your link:
"It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so
far without success."

Even then it just about the primary. I am thinking Mr, O could probably
still get the nomination w/o GA if needed.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:55:21 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Han wrote:


From your link:
"It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so
far without success."

Even then it just about the primary. I am thinking Mr, O could probably
still get the nomination w/o GA if needed.

And in the general, GA's 16 electoral votes are already in the [light]
red column, but he's got 92 extras to play with.

Jim

"Attila.Iskander" wrote:


-snip-
I would be willing to bet that you also think that Elvis was recently at
your local mall!


yawn
When idiots can't attack the message, they're reduced to stupid ad hominem
attacks
Thanks for the proof that you're an idiot.


I love's me a little irony with mit me breakfast.

Jim

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Han wrote:


From your link:
"It's one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country,
so
far without success."

Even then it just about the primary. I am thinking Mr, O could probably
still get the nomination w/o GA if needed.


It's not just GA
California has it's own lawsuit going
And there are a few other States where there are such cases as well.
If he's eliminated from the ballot in enough States, then he can't get the
Electoral College votes for those states
And a President is NOT elected on a "national vote". He's elected on
ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes.

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:


-snip-
I would be willing to bet that you also think that Elvis was recently
at
your local mall!


yawn
When idiots can't attack the message, they're reduced to stupid ad hominem
attacks
Thanks for the proof that you're an idiot.


I love's me a little irony with mit me breakfast.


Too bad you're clueless about what stupid projections are.
If you think that's got anything to do with irony, go for it.

On Jan 24, 9:48*pm, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:35:44 -0600, Jim T wrote:
snip

You're obviously talking to a fence post.

I would vote for a fence post over a Canadian.

We could send you a spare royal over but it would need to be a
permanent position. No voting.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:26:53 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I would vote for a fence post over a Canadian.

We could send you a spare royal over but it would need to be a
permanent position. No voting.

You really are deranged to think I need a critter like that. Like I
say, I would vote for a fence post.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:51:09 -0800 (PST), Country
wrote:

Shades of 2000 when the Supreme Court stepped in to assure Bush could
steal the election.

Wrong. You must be a Canadian and know nothing of our courts of law?

We appeal to the court, win, collect our marbles and then go home
happy...

Country wrote:


So if you can't beat a political foe in an election get activist
judges to trump up charges against him so he can't run? I thought
conservatives hated activist judges.

Whether the judge is a despicable "activist" has yet to be determined.


Shades of 2000 when the Supreme Court stepped in to assure Bush could
steal the election.


The Supreme Court did not "step in" in the 2000 election. The case was
appealed directly to them from the Florida Supreme Court. And while they
could have denied certiorari, that would have created more fluxations than
what they actually did.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


The Supreme Court did not "step in" in the 2000 election. The case was
appealed directly to them from the Florida Supreme Court. And while they
could have denied certiorari, that would have created more fluxations than
what they actually did.

Twice, maybe 3 times. What people tend to studiously ignore is that the
vote to stop the recount was 7-2. The vote as to what to do next is what
was 5-4. And actually more fractured than that if you actually read the
decision.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

" wrote in
:

You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the state's
determine who gets placed on the ballot.

I believe that indeed each state has their own rules, subject of course to
appeal.
(ducking)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/25/12 8:30 PM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the state's
determine who gets placed on the ballot.

I believe that indeed each state has their own rules, subject of course to
appeal.
(ducking)

The California Secretary of State removed Eldridge Cleaver from the
ballot because he wasn't 35 years old at the time. That must've been
40 years ago or so.

Dean Hoffman " wrote in news:jfqejp$t1k$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

The California Secretary of State removed Eldridge Cleaver from the
ballot because he wasn't 35 years old at the time. That must've been
40 years ago or so.


LOL

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
" wrote:


You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the state's
determine who gets placed on the ballot.

For the primary. I don't think the state has as much say over the
national election, but would be willing to look at evidence to the
contrary.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
" wrote:


You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the
state's determine who gets placed on the ballot.

For the primary. I don't think the state has as much say over the
national election, but would be willing to look at evidence to the
contrary.

You've got it backwards. The state has very little, if any, say in the
primaries - they are run by the political parties - and almost complete say
over the general election.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:37:25 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the state's
determine who gets placed on the ballot.

For the primary. I don't think the state has as much say over the
national election, but would be willing to look at evidence to the
contrary.

Absolutely wrong.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:
"IGot2P" wrote in message
...

I would be willing to bet that you also think that Elvis was recently
at
your local mall!

When idiots can't attack the message, they're reduced to stupid ad
hominem attacks

You don't recognize an analogy? Oh, you believe in aliens too ...


Funny how you need to create strawman arguments when you cant' argue the
issue
A loser tactic.
SO I put back the reference that you cut out to change the context, you
dishonest turd.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:37:25 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the state's
determine who gets placed on the ballot.

For the primary. I don't think the state has as much say over the
national election, but would be willing to look at evidence to the
contrary.

Absolutely wrong.

Sorry but that doesn't really qualify as "evidence to the contrary"

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
" wrote:



The mitigating fact is that the states won't award electoral votes based on
national vote until enough states pass such a constitutional amendment to give
the needed electoral votes. It's not *that* dumb. Misguided, to be sure.
A state diluting what electoral votes it has is just plain *stupid*.

I would suggest that apportioning does exactly the opposite. Currently
you get a few big EC states that get all the attention because it is
winner take all. The candidates can, and do, ignore most of the others.
With votes apportioned in some manner, smaller states become more
important again as every COngressional district is theoretically in
play. Would also make election night much more interesting.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:37:25 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the
state's determine who gets placed on the ballot.

For the primary. I don't think the state has as much say over the
national election, but would be willing to look at evidence to the
contrary.

Absolutely wrong.

Sorry but that doesn't really qualify as "evidence to the contrary"

Um, okay.

First, you've got to understand that the voters in a state do not vote for
president and vice-president - they vote for a slate of "electors." These
"electors" are chosen by each political party and the official party submits
a certified list to the Secretary of State of each state who, in turn,
orders that slate to be placed on the ballot.

The electors could be pledged to vote for a sack of anvils, but if the slate
is put forth by a legitimate political party, that slate goes on the ballot.
Admittedly, most states put the name of the party's presidential candidate
on the ballot, as a shorthand, but the voter is not actually voting for that
named person.

As for the rest of the ballot, the candidates, from Inspector of Hides &
Animals to Governor are submitted by the various political parties. The
state, itself, has no say in that list, aside from the obvious (e.g.,
resident, citizen, of legal age, etc.). A candidate for Congress or Governor
does NOT (usually) apply to the state itself nor does the state have any
(well, much) control over an individual's candidacy.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Sorry but that doesn't really qualify as "evidence to the contrary"



The electors could be pledged to vote for a sack of anvils, but if the slate
is put forth by a legitimate political party, that slate goes on the ballot.
Admittedly, most states put the name of the party's presidential candidate
on the ballot, as a shorthand, but the voter is not actually voting for that
named person.
Which, so far at least doesn't address the issue at hand which is can a
state keep a nominated person off of a ballot. Even if being used a
short hand.
I would also doubt any real impact since the electors can vote for
whoever they want to in most states(at least in theory), then those
beholden to the Dems would most likely vote for the Dem nominee even if
kept off of the ballot.


As for the rest of the ballot, the candidates, from Inspector of Hides &
Animals to Governor are submitted by the various political parties. The
state, itself, has no say in that list, aside from the obvious (e.g.,
resident, citizen, of legal age, etc.). A candidate for Congress or Governor
does NOT (usually) apply to the state itself nor does the state have any
(well, much) control over an individual's candidacy.

These are state offices and thus under the control of the State,
although technically Congress has the final right under the constitution
to say who gets in the club. (Seldom, if ever, used.)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Jan 26, 9:25*pm, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Han" wrote in message

...

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:
"IGot2P" wrote in message
...

*I would be willing to bet that you also think that Elvis was recently
at
your local mall!

When idiots can't attack the message, they're reduced to stupid ad
hominem attacks

You don't recognize an analogy? * Oh, you believe in aliens too ...

Funny how you need to create strawman arguments when you cant' argue the
issue
* * A loser tactic.
SO I put back the reference that you cut out to change the context, you
dishonest turd.


LOL, how old are you? You act like a five year old.

-C-

Han wrote in
:



You mean the newt?



Appropriate as never before...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYO0joolR0


--
Tegger

Kurt Ullman wrote:

As for the rest of the ballot, the candidates, from Inspector of
Hides & Animals to Governor are submitted by the various political
parties. The state, itself, has no say in that list, aside from the
obvious (e.g., resident, citizen, of legal age, etc.). A candidate
for Congress or Governor does NOT (usually) apply to the state
itself nor does the state have any (well, much) control over an
individual's candidacy.

These are state offices and thus under the control of the State,
although technically Congress has the final right under the
constitution to say who gets in the club. (Seldom, if ever, used.)

That's exactly the point: the state has NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who will be on
the ballot. Okay, there are rare exceptions such as an open election to fill
a vacancy where state procedures vary wildly, but in the main, again, the
state merely records what the political parties have established and have NO
discretion in the matter.

When a political party submits a name to the authority charged with
oversight (usually the Secretary of State), that name MUST appear on the
ballot. Officers of a state's government are completely impotent.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:18:29 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



The mitigating fact is that the states won't award electoral votes based on
national vote until enough states pass such a constitutional amendment to give
the needed electoral votes. It's not *that* dumb. Misguided, to be sure.
A state diluting what electoral votes it has is just plain *stupid*.

I would suggest that apportioning does exactly the opposite. Currently
you get a few big EC states that get all the attention because it is
winner take all.

Actually, no. The bubble states get the attention.

The candidates can, and do, ignore most of the others.

The popular vote would make sure the small states in flyover country would get
*no* interest.

With votes apportioned in some manner, smaller states become more
important again as every COngressional district is theoretically in
play. Would also make election night much more interesting.

No, it's actually just the opposite. Popular vote would concentrate the
interest in the large metropolitan areas, leaving flyover country without
representation at all. The founders didn't just throw together the
Constitution. There was a *lot* of thought put into this.

Small states have a far larger representation in Congress (and the Electoral
College) relative to their size, than large states. This wasn't done by
accident.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:15:05 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:37:25 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the state's
determine who gets placed on the ballot.

For the primary. I don't think the state has as much say over the
national election, but would be willing to look at evidence to the
contrary.

Absolutely wrong.

Sorry but that doesn't really qualify as "evidence to the contrary"

OK, maybe I should have said "read the Constitution, dumbass".

In article ,
" wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:15:05 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:37:25 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


You asked the question and I answered it. The fact is that the state's
determine who gets placed on the ballot.

For the primary. I don't think the state has as much say over the
national election, but would be willing to look at evidence to the
contrary.

Absolutely wrong.

Sorry but that doesn't really qualify as "evidence to the contrary"

OK, maybe I should have said "read the Constitution, dumbass".

I did, I still can't find it and if you can't give me an actual place to
look, then just say so. It is SOOOO Democrat of you to respond with
abuse.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz