On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

--
€œWhats the difference between a British and an Iraqi tank?€�
€œI dont know.€�
€œWelcome to the US Air Force.€�

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:19 -0000, Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 7:02:03 AM UTC-6, FromTheRafters wrote:
Roger Blake laid this down on his screen :
On 2016-12-01, Taxpayer wrote:
In my opinion, if someone is not working and paying taxes, they should not
be allowed to vote.

I would say that if someone is receiving a government entitlement check
they should not be able to vote due to conflict of interest. People
living at public expense should not be permitted to determine public
policy. There are far too many non-productive, useless lumps of protoplasm
being permitted to pick their neighbors' pockets by proxy.

So disabled military veterans shouldn't be allowed to vote? That's
pretty ****ed up. Maybe you have a different definition for
"entitlement" than I do.

Hell, perhaps military vets should get two votes as reparations for being crapped on for so many years. There should never be a homeless vet or one who can't get medical care. My parents served, my dad's older brother was a lifer, my older brother served two tours in Vietnam. Me and my other brother tried to join during the Vietnam war but were turned down for medical reasons. Hell, we tried to join which is more than a lot of the whining weasels have ever done. The citizenry should be thanking the military and veterans every day because we have no idea of the secret things they've done to protect the country. My older brother was special forces and in Laos before anyone ever heard of the country. The average citizen has no fraking clue. ヽ(à²*_à²*)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Thankful Monster

They CHOSE to be in special forces.

--
A young blonde girl goes to the doctor for a physical. The doctor puts his stethoscope up to the girl's chest and says, "Big breaths."
The girl replies, "Yeth and I'm not even thickthteen."

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:23:32 AM UTC-6, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:00:47 -0000, Ben Dover wrote:

On 11/30/2016 10:33 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Heck, put the able bodied welfare recipients to work cleaning up their neighborhoods.

LOL, the typical poor deprived fat welfare spud is too lazy to pick up the trash in their own yard.

Some people (not suggesting Uncle Monster) are "disabled" because they're overweight. They shouldn't be classed as legally disabled.
--


There are people who are obese because of glandular problems and then there are ectomorphic people who can't gain weight no matter how much they eat. I suppose disability should be determined on an individual basis. I mustn't leave out the mentally disabled like those who are pitching a tantrum because their candidate didn't win the Presidential election. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Gimpy Monster

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 14:56:48 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 04:20:44 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:52:54 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:46:30 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:30:49 -0600, #NoDAPL
wrote:



So the alternative is to grant land the right to vote? Strange. I don't
think you guys have thought this through.

This is the "United STATES of America. It was designed to be a union
of states, not a oligarchy ruled by overcrowded coastal cities. Each
state has power, just because it os a state and that shows up in the
Senate and the Electoral College. Since the federal government started
taking our money and dispersing it from DC, there are few other state
powers, even over matters that never leave the state.

Votes should be PER PERSON. Nothing else makes sense. No one person is more important than another.

We do not want the feudal system like you folks had in England where
the people in the castle dictated terms to everyone outside the wall.
Perhaps that is not an issue in a small well populated place like UK
but things that make perfect sense in New York City are just stupid in
Wyoming and the people in Wyoming want a say about what the feds
mandate for them.
(hence the US Senate and the EC)

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

The idea of "states" seems to evade you. If the federal government was
not so intrusive it would not really be that big an issue but if we
had direct elections, 10% of the country would be ruling the other 90%
simply because of their fetid population density in the cities.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:04:17 -0000, Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:23:32 AM UTC-6, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:00:47 -0000, Ben Dover wrote:

On 11/30/2016 10:33 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Heck, put the able bodied welfare recipients to work cleaning up their neighborhoods.

LOL, the typical poor deprived fat welfare spud is too lazy to pick up the trash in their own yard.

Some people (not suggesting Uncle Monster) are "disabled" because they're overweight. They shouldn't be classed as legally disabled.
--


There are people who are obese because of glandular problems and then there are ectomorphic people who can't gain weight no matter how much they eat. I suppose disability should be determined on an individual basis.. I mustn't leave out the mentally disabled like those who are pitching a tantrum because their candidate didn't win the Presidential election. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Gimpy Monster

Only ectomorphs should reproduce. Everyone else is inferior.

--
The 2 most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:12:29 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 14:56:48 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 04:20:44 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:52:54 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:46:30 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:30:49 -0600, #NoDAPL
wrote:



So the alternative is to grant land the right to vote? Strange. I don't
think you guys have thought this through.

This is the "United STATES of America. It was designed to be a union
of states, not a oligarchy ruled by overcrowded coastal cities. Each
state has power, just because it os a state and that shows up in the
Senate and the Electoral College. Since the federal government started
taking our money and dispersing it from DC, there are few other state
powers, even over matters that never leave the state.

Votes should be PER PERSON. Nothing else makes sense. No one person is more important than another.

We do not want the feudal system like you folks had in England where
the people in the castle dictated terms to everyone outside the wall.
Perhaps that is not an issue in a small well populated place like UK
but things that make perfect sense in New York City are just stupid in
Wyoming and the people in Wyoming want a say about what the feds
mandate for them.
(hence the US Senate and the EC)

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

The idea of "states" seems to evade you. If the federal government was
not so intrusive it would not really be that big an issue but if we
had direct elections, 10% of the country would be ruling the other 90%
simply because of their fetid population density in the cities.

When you say 10%, do you mean 10% of the number of people, or 10% of the area? The vote should always be per number of people. If 90% of you live in one half of the country, and 10% in the other half, why the hell should the two groups get equal votes?

--
What has four legs, is big, green, fuzzy, and if it fell out of a tree would kill you?
A pool table.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

--
Proceed to your next incarnation. Use any means available.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:24:14 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

It gets back to the rights of states. You had a similar issue with
Brexit. The majority of the people who voted, did not want to be ruled
by a union of other countries.
Would you really want the French and Germans voting on where they get
to spend your money? They have more population than you, much more.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:53:00 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:24:14 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

It gets back to the rights of states. You had a similar issue with
Brexit. The majority of the people who voted, did not want to be ruled
by a union of other countries.
Would you really want the French and Germans voting on where they get
to spend your money? They have more population than you, much more.

I would if I was part of their country. Just as I accept that London has more people, so they get more choice in the running of the UK than other cities. It's not ONE city, it's MILLIONS of people. No one person is any more important than any other. Why should a little town in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland with 200 people have as much say as the 5 million folk in London?

--
It has recently been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

James Wilkinson Sword used his keyboard to write :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends
up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10
million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less
important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of
people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same
importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes
is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes
for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million
votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

I would strongly suspect voter fraud. It is not very likely that
everybody in an area is in agreement as to who to vote for. But you
just hit on a problem that does exist, that each area (State) gets to
throw away all the votes for the perceived loser and attribute them to
the winner of the popular vote in their respective areas.

IMO, this erodes the handicapping effect which Cindy Hamilton
attributed to the Electoral College above.

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:53:16 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:24:14 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

It gets back to the rights of states. You had a similar issue with
Brexit. The majority of the people who voted, did not want to be ruled
by a union of other countries.
Would you really want the French and Germans voting on where they get
to spend your money? They have more population than you, much more.

It's hard to get some people to understand that pure democracies always fail. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Democratic Monster

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 17:00:23 -0000, FromTheRafters wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword used his keyboard to write :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends
up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10
million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less
important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of
people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same
importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes
is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes
for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million
votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

I would strongly suspect voter fraud. It is not very likely that
everybody in an area is in agreement as to who to vote for.

It's an example made to make you answer my question. So which would you say had won, assuming everyone voted correctly with no fraud?

But you
just hit on a problem that does exist, that each area (State) gets to
throw away all the votes for the perceived loser and attribute them to
the winner of the popular vote in their respective areas.

Agreed. Which is why the president should be chosen simply on the number of votes for him throughout the entire country.

IMO, this erodes the handicapping effect which Cindy Hamilton
attributed to the Electoral College above.

--
An Englishman was feeling a little queezy on his first sailing, and leaned over the edge of the boat. He saw a Frenchman below opening his porthole so, feeling the urge to bring up his dinner, he yelled "LOOK OUT!"
The Frenchman stuck his head out of the porthole and was decorated with semi-digested food. "YOU SILLY ENGLISHMAN!!!!" he yelled, "Why do you say look out when you mean look in?"

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 17:06:32 -0000, Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:53:16 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:24:14 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

It gets back to the rights of states. You had a similar issue with
Brexit. The majority of the people who voted, did not want to be ruled
by a union of other countries.
Would you really want the French and Germans voting on where they get
to spend your money? They have more population than you, much more.

It's hard to get some people to understand that pure democracies always fail. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Democratic Monster

Pure anarchy is the way to go.

--
A midget fortune-teller who escapes from prison is a small medium at large.

"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

--
If you believe in telepathy, raise my hand.

James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he is a troll, or
both.

"Sterling Archer"
wrote in message James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for
the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he
is a troll, or both.

Yup. Jim must be as dumb as a rock on the side of the
road!

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:36:24 -0000, Sterling Archer wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he is a troll, or
both.

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

--
The tired doctor was awakened by a phone call in the middle of the night. "Please, you have to come right over," pleaded the distraught young mother. "My child has swallowed a contraceptive."
The physician dressed quickly, but before he could get out the door, the phone rang again.
"You don't have to come over after all," the woman said with a sigh of relief. "My husband just found another one."

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:42:02 -0000, Phil Kangas wrote:


"Sterling Archer"
wrote in message James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for
the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he
is a troll, or both.

Yup. Jim must be as dumb as a rock on the side of the
road!

Rod, stop replying to yourself.

--
The Official MBA Handbook on business cards: Avoid overly pretentious job titles such as "Lord of the Realm, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" or "Director of Corporate Planning."

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:36:24 -0000, Sterling Archer wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he is a troll, or
both.

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we
don't think it's a good idea for this country.

Bear in mind that I voted for the loser in this race, and I still
think the Electoral College is important and desirable.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:52:30 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:36:24 -0000, Sterling Archer wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he is a troll, or
both.

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we
don't think it's a good idea for this country.

Bear in mind that I voted for the loser in this race, and I still
think the Electoral College is important and desirable.

Anything other than 1 vote per person means you think some people are more important than others.

--
If you refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor, you may be a Muslim.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:59:09 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:53:00 -0000, wrote:

It gets back to the rights of states. You had a similar issue with
Brexit. The majority of the people who voted, did not want to be ruled
by a union of other countries.
Would you really want the French and Germans voting on where they get
to spend your money? They have more population than you, much more.

I would if I was part of their country. Just as I accept that London has more people, so they get more choice in the running of the UK than other cities. It's not ONE city, it's MILLIONS of people. No one person is any more important than any other. Why should a little town in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland with 200 people have as much say as the 5 million folk in London?

You are overstating the issue. Would you say it was OK for 5 million
people in london to override 4.995 million people in the rest of the
country?

It really doesn't matter what you think anyway. We kicked you guys out
because we did not like a government with a king/queen.
Who voted for the windsors?

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:01:00 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:59:09 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:53:00 -0000, wrote:

It gets back to the rights of states. You had a similar issue with
Brexit. The majority of the people who voted, did not want to be ruled
by a union of other countries.
Would you really want the French and Germans voting on where they get
to spend your money? They have more population than you, much more.

I would if I was part of their country. Just as I accept that London has more people, so they get more choice in the running of the UK than other cities. It's not ONE city, it's MILLIONS of people. No one person is any more important than any other. Why should a little town in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland with 200 people have as much say as the 5 million folk in London?

You are overstating the issue. Would you say it was OK for 5 million
people in london to override 4.995 million people in the rest of the
country?

Yes. Where they live is irrelevant. The fact is most people voted for the winner.

It really doesn't matter what you think anyway. We kicked you guys out
because we did not like a government with a king/queen.
Who voted for the windsors?

They have no say in anything, they're just a pointless waste of money, a figurehead.

--
It has recently been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:30:24 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

If the "national government" only governed "national issues" it would
not be a problem but since FDR the federal government has expanded
it's powers into state issues in a way that is specialty prohibited by
the 9th and 10th amendments. In some cases they use the power to tax
and distribute that money. In other cases it is at the point of a gun.
Perhaps you folks are OK with an abusive central power but you still
have a queen so I am not surprised. Doesn't the queen pick your PM?

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:47:04 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

Why don't you understand it is none of your ****ing business.
Explain the queen.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:12:41 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:30:24 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

If the "national government" only governed "national issues" it would
not be a problem but since FDR the federal government has expanded
it's powers into state issues in a way that is specialty prohibited by
the 9th and 10th amendments. In some cases they use the power to tax
and distribute that money. In other cases it is at the point of a gun.
Perhaps you folks are OK with an abusive central power but you still
have a queen so I am not surprised. Doesn't the queen pick your PM?

I never said they should be poking their noses into state affairs, but who gets into power should be on a per person decision. No one person is more important just because they live in another state.

--
The longest word word has 189,819 letters, and takes three hours to pronounce:
http://www.digitalspy.com/fun/news/a...-to-pronounce/

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:14:15 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:47:04 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

Why don't you understand it is none of your ****ing business.
Explain the queen.

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

--
What's the most sensitive part of your anatomy when you're masturbating?
Your ears.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:19:32 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

Yet she gets to pick the PM, as about as close as you get to a
president. That sounds like power to me.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:51:03 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:19:32 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

Yet she gets to pick the PM, as about as close as you get to a
president. That sounds like power to me.

She doesn't get to pick anyone. We vote for the party, the party picks a PM.

--
What is the difference between a 69 and driving in the fog?
When driving in the fog, you can't see the asshole in front of you.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:55:41 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:51:03 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:19:32 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

Yet she gets to pick the PM, as about as close as you get to a
president. That sounds like power to me.

She doesn't get to pick anyone. We vote for the party, the party picks a PM.

Somebody should tell the folks at wikipedia that. Even so, you still
don't get to vote for your leader. It really sounds like your vote
doesn't count much either.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 22:09:14 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:55:41 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:51:03 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:19:32 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

Yet she gets to pick the PM, as about as close as you get to a
president. That sounds like power to me.

She doesn't get to pick anyone. We vote for the party, the party picks a PM.

Somebody should tell the folks at wikipedia that. Even so, you still
don't get to vote for your leader. It really sounds like your vote
doesn't count much either.

We have the same ****ed up system you do, we get to pick our leader, but via how many areas have chosen each one. Yes, the party can change leader at any time, but they usually keep the one that got them in in the first place, as they want the vote next time round.

--
TV takes over your life when you could be doing useful things like smoking crack and stealing car stereos.

On 12/1/16 2:19 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:14:15 -0000, wrote:

Why don't you understand it is none of your ****ing business.
Explain the queen.

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for
the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

I've read stories though that she likes to wander around incognito
just to hang out with regular people. She gets a kick out of people not
recognizing her.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:04:14 -0000, Dean Hoffman wrote:

On 12/1/16 2:19 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:14:15 -0000, wrote:

Why don't you understand it is none of your ****ing business.
Explain the queen.

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for
the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

I've read stories though that she likes to wander around incognito
just to hang out with regular people. She gets a kick out of people not
recognizing her.

Cite.

--
Is it called a blow job because you inflate it with your mouth?

On 12/1/2016 10:23 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Some people (not suggesting Uncle Monster) are "disabled" because
they're overweight. They shouldn't be classed as legally disabled.


Very, very few. What does happen, people become partially disabled,
move less, then gain weight because they have little else to do but eat.
Couple that with inactivity and you've seen the result.

When I tore my knee I gained 20 pounds from the time of injury to the
time of repair. Took me a couple of years to get the weight back off.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:42:37 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/1/2016 10:23 AM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Some people (not suggesting Uncle Monster) are "disabled" because
they're overweight. They shouldn't be classed as legally disabled.


Very, very few. What does happen, people become partially disabled,
move less, then gain weight because they have little else to do but eat.
Couple that with inactivity and you've seen the result.

When I tore my knee I gained 20 pounds from the time of injury to the
time of repair. Took me a couple of years to get the weight back off.

I know many people who claim to be disabled and have nothing wrong with them but eating a lot. I'd say 20% of disable folk are like this.

--
Flanders and Swann on MOT tests:
Our car is getting a bit old, it'll have to be tested soon.
You know they started these tests for 10-year-old cars, they brought it down to six, now five, they'll bring it down to three.
There's even been some talk of having them tested before they leave the factories."

On 12/1/16 5:36 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:04:14 -0000, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 12/1/16 2:19 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:14:15 -0000, wrote:

Why don't you understand it is none of your ****ing business.
Explain the queen.

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for
the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

I've read stories though that she likes to wander around
incognito
just to hang out with regular people. She gets a kick out of people not
recognizing her.

Cite.

http://preview.alturl.com/q9gou
http://preview.alturl.com/2piu6
http://preview.alturl.com/gytjg

On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:08:10 -0600, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 12/1/16 5:36 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 23:04:14 -0000, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 12/1/16 2:19 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:14:15 -0000, wrote:

Why don't you understand it is none of your ****ing business.
Explain the queen.

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for
the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

I've read stories though that she likes to wander around
incognito
just to hang out with regular people. She gets a kick out of people not
recognizing her.

Cite.

http://preview.alturl.com/q9gou
http://preview.alturl.com/2piu6
http://preview.alturl.com/gytjg

Gee I think I saw that woman pushing an old grocery cart down
Cleveland avenue today.

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:52:30 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:47:10 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:36:24 -0000, Sterling Archer wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword explained :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:23:00 -0000, Phil Kangas
wrote:


"James Wilkinson Sword"

If 90% of you live in one half of the country,
and 10% in the other half, why the hell should
the two groups get equal votes?


Why should the 90% be able to tell the 10%
how to govern their states? We are a
republic of states not a democracy. States
have rights of their own. That's the idea of
the EC.

But you're not voting for states, you're voting for the national government.

This guy Sword is dumber than a sack of hammers or he is a troll, or
both.

Why can't you yank ****wits understand simple concepts?

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. It's that we
don't think it's a good idea for this country.

Bear in mind that I voted for the loser in this race, and I still
think the Electoral College is important and desirable.

Anything other than 1 vote per person means you think some people are more important than others.

Here's another way of looking at it. Our people don't elect
the president. Our states do.

Who elects your Prime Minister? Not the people.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 22:09:14 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:55:41 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:51:03 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:19:32 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

She is nothing to do with government. She has no power. She's for the Japanese and Americans to come and take pictures of.

Yet she gets to pick the PM, as about as close as you get to a
president. That sounds like power to me.

She doesn't get to pick anyone. We vote for the party, the party picks a PM.

Somebody should tell the folks at wikipedia that. Even so, you still
don't get to vote for your leader. It really sounds like your vote
doesn't count much either.

We have the same ****ed up system you do, we get to pick our leader, but via how many areas have chosen each one. Yes, the party can change leader at any time, but they usually keep the one that got them in in the first place, as they want the vote next time round.

Maybe you should worry more about your own problems and leave
us to worry about ours.

Cindy Hamilton