Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 03:03:11 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... 418
8926  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Ireland Election 2007 on: July 27, 2007, 10:28:27 am
WHY DO U LIKE THE ANTICHRIST-POPE-WHORE JAS YOU ROME-LOVING FIANNA FAILER (HAHA LIKE 'FAIL' IN ENGLISH HAHA...) I HATE TEH CATHOLICS!!1111

Tongue
8927  Questions and Answers / Electoral Reform / Re: North Carolina may adopt District Method for choosing electors on: July 27, 2007, 10:17:17 am
From Ballot Access News:

On July 25, the North Carolina House Election Law & Campaign Finance Committee passed SB 353. It provides that each U.S. House district in North Carolina would elect its own presidential elector. The bill had passed the Senate on May 24. It is likely to receive a vote in the House on July 26. The bill passed on a party-line vote, with Democrats voting “yes” and Republicans voting “no.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.

The only states that currently let each U.S. House district choose its own presidential elector are Nebraska and Maine.


If this method had been used in 2004 Kerry would have received 4 of the state's 15 electoral votes.


So basically the question here is "Do the Democrats have a majority in the NC house"?

EDIT: I've just looked it up. It does - and quite a big one too. So this will pass... Good luck Dave. (Due to what Ernest said) Smiley
8928  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What city/county should the preceding poster be forced to live in? on: July 27, 2007, 10:13:30 am
Longford or failing that Macon County, Alabama.
8929  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Ireland Election 2007 on: July 27, 2007, 10:12:50 am
Gotta love Trinity and it's complete dislike of voting for FF and Pseudo-FFers.

Protestants!

lol



OMG PAPIST!!111

8930  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Explosion at Grand Central Station on: July 27, 2007, 10:08:44 am
If the Patriot Act were stronger, we could protect America from pipe bursts.

And the Anti-Gay Marriage laws, obviously.
8931  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which would you rather live under? on: July 27, 2007, 10:02:45 am
Define Libertarianism for one thing.

If it's the style of Libertarianism shown by some of the posters here such as MaC and SPC then I would emigrate. The Quote in Straha's sig is actually quite true on this occasion.

EDIT: One thing is clear from reading this thread.. Not people actually understand what Communism is.
8932  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 27, 2007, 10:00:20 am
If we allow gay marriages then to not allow polygamous ones would be hypocritical to say the least. The traditional definition of marriage is 1 Man + 1 Woman, not "two people that love each other"; to argue otherwise is childish. Gay marriage is social engineering, plain and simple. This is where most supporters of gay marriage run into problems, because they claim it's an issue of equal rights, but it's an attempt to change societal attitudes towards behaviors they accept and believe others should accept. If you support gay marriage and not polygamous ones then youre just as bad as the people who oppose gay marriage, because in the end you're just forcing your beliefs on others. Ideally government would have no place in marriage, because no matter how you slice it, you're having the government telling people what's worthy of recognition and what isn't, something I don't believe they have the moral authority to do.

If by Traditional you mean Post-17\18th Century Europe and "the West" then you are correct. Otherwise, no.

And what could be more socially engineered that the idea of Marriage in the first place?
8933  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NASA 'sent drunks into space' on: July 27, 2007, 08:02:41 am
At least NASA (I almost wrote NASO Tongue ) can now be certain about the effects of gravity on alcoholism..
8934  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Make an Electoral Map of an election between the preceding two posters on: July 27, 2007, 07:56:21 am


Bacon King wins.. Just. Crazy map, crazy election.
8935  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Make an Electoral Map of an election between three preceding posters on: July 27, 2007, 07:51:43 am


DWTL (Red), Southern Patriot (Blue), Bacon King (Green)

Bacon King wins 371-167 on this 2000-based map.
8936  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 26, 2007, 08:48:13 pm
DWTL, I was going to respond to your inane excuse for logic, but it's really hard to take you seriously when you type like an eight year old.

It's better for him in the long-term.
8937  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: which atlasian of the opposite party would you.... on: July 26, 2007, 08:47:20 pm
Just go F**k yourself.

That must be your only post in the last six months where you weren't obviously using a thesaurus. Smiley

Is that actually biologically possible anyway? Though I suppose it depends on how define "yourself" or however you happen to define what f**king is.

Just a thought.

Obviously can't apply myself to this thread, being Irish where running mates are pre-selected by Party HQ for local constituencies, and the fact that I belong to no party.
8938  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 26, 2007, 08:44:40 pm
Okay then respond to this:
What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?
Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

A slippery slope like giving women the vote?

No doubt "most people" did not want women to have the vote, at least respectable people they just don't think about that sort of thing.

Anyway wouldn't Polygamy be a rather slippery summit than a slope, all we would back to is a more ancient (in Western Europe\Anglosphere) form of relationships. But as you said "You must be living in the past".
Some things are necessary for a society to progress.  I believe all people should never be discriminated against for something they can control (women, minority, etc.), however, having a gay marraige does not fall under this realm.  People are all about pushing the boundaries, and the boundaries are being pushed way to far in my opinion.  I do not ask you to subscribe to my opinion, however, that is what it is.

I assume you mean Can't control, in which I would undoubtably classify sexual feelings in there. So gays are being discriminated against. But this thread isn't about gays it's about Polygamy.. the boundaries of society are hardly fixed things, nor does Society progress in a straight line (that's actually a traditional arguement of clueless pseudo-leftist liberals) it does not seem harmful to society if, say, 2 women and 2 men decide to marry each other and raise children. Actually it would probably be beneficial to society from the point of view of rearing children, etc.
8939  Questions and Answers / Electoral Reform / Re: Electoral system change on: July 26, 2007, 08:36:01 pm
I'd like to put forward the following method for discussion.

Keep the electoral college as it is, but instead of a block vote allow each Congressional District to elect one delegate (so that it's no longer who gets the most votes in a states wins the entire delegation) and then allow the extra two delegates from the Senatorial section to go to the candidate who gets the most votes. So take for example a state like CA, say it votes and sends 33 Dem delegates and 20 GOP delegates and then because the Dems poll the most votes, the Dems take the extra two seats giving 35 Dems to 20 GOP (which seems more equitable than Dem 55 GOP 0)

That system immediatly runs into problems once you hit states with a very small number of Electoral votes.. Especially states with just 3.
8940  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 26, 2007, 08:34:30 pm
Okay then respond to this:
What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?
Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....

My reasoning is personal to an extent that I believe marriage should be that, but it is also to the extent of closing the door.  Most people do not want polygamy, but I think if gay marriage is allowed the next wrung on the ladder of progression is polygamy.  It is a slippery slope I do not wish to go down.

A slippery slope like giving women the vote?

No doubt "most people" did not want women to have the vote, at least respectable people they just don't think about that sort of thing.

Anyway wouldn't Polygamy be a rather slippery summit than a slope, all we would back to is a more ancient (in Western Europe\Anglosphere) form of relationships. But as you said "You must be living in the past".
8941  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 26, 2007, 08:28:58 pm
Okay then respond to this:
What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?
Many I wasn't clear before when I said Man + Woman I meant 1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage.  Therefore, I would not consider these to be marriage.  However, I must argue that it is inconsistent that if you break that formula and ideal for gays, you do not extend the same right for those people.  That is why I draw the line at the 1+1 ideal.

What you haven't made clear is why exactly 1 Man + 1 Woman should equal Marriage precisely. Unless of course you are a devotee to the Hallmark\Disney version of history\religion....
8942  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 26, 2007, 08:22:58 pm
Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

Gay marriage doesn't "mock" marriage anymore than interracial marriage did in 1950.  Grow up.
A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

Is it dark in your closet?

I see you've broken out liberal argument #9, "by opposing (x) you must be secretly in favor of (x)"

Way to avoid Debate.

I was having a debate, then Earl broke out the "you must be gay card" to which the only response is "no I"m not", which would be followed by an Earl reponse of "yes you are", to be followed by many responses either in the negative or affirmative discussing my sexual orientation, which is not a debate worth having.  If Earl would have given a legit response, as usual, I would have responded to it.

Okay then respond to this:

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?
8943  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Senate panel approves new warnings on cigarette packs on: July 26, 2007, 08:20:48 pm
More Democrat hypocrisy. They don't want things like the patriot act to stop terror because it "may" bump into people's freedoms...yet they want to take away people's freedom to smoke....

Even by your Standards Mike..... Wow.

"Graphic Warnings" hardly take away people's freedom. Though they are still silly, because of what Andrew Said. Warantless wiretapping on the other hand..
8944  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 26, 2007, 08:18:07 pm
Again, if you are for gay marriage you should be for polygamy to be consist in mocking marriage, however, I for one believe both should be illegal

Gay marriage doesn't "mock" marriage anymore than interracial marriage did in 1950.  Grow up.
A goal of marriage of procreation, something interracial marriage could achieve.  Marriage is between a man and woman, something interracial marriage cannot achieve.  Interracial marriage achieves the same tenets as intraracial marriage so your analogy does work as gay marriage does not achieves these tenets.  Liberal argument #4 "Your living in the past", is one of the least convincing ones in my opinion.

Is it dark in your closet?

I see you've broken out liberal argument #9, "by opposing (x) you must be secretly in favor of (x)"

Way to avoid Debate.
8945  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should Polygamy be illegal? on: July 26, 2007, 07:56:24 pm
Yes -any 'marriage' (whether it be polygamy, bigamy, or whatever) conducted outside the confines of a monogamous relationship should be illegal if it isn't already. 

Once again, why?

What's so wrong with a Polygynyous (One man-Several Wives), Polyandrous (One Woman-Several Husbands) or even heck, Polyamorous Polygamy (Several people of different sexes) relationship?
8946  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Make an Electoral Map of an election between three preceding posters on: July 26, 2007, 07:41:41 pm


Earl (Red) 179
Alcon (Blue, sorry) 234
King (Green) 125

Record Low turnout in the Ultra-Conservative states. Feels that all the candidates don't have enough Jesus.
8947  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Describe a Typical Post by the Preceding Poster on: July 26, 2007, 07:33:13 pm
Quoting other peoples posts in the "Describe a Typical Post by the Preceding Poster" thread.
8948  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How many of America's Top 100 Most Populated Cities Have You Visited? on: July 26, 2007, 07:27:52 pm
Surprised that Phoneix is so high.

Anyway Only Boston and for about 12 hours once, New York.
8949  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: What's the last movie you've seen? on: July 26, 2007, 07:25:49 pm
The Simpsons Movie
I really liked the opening half hour or so - but I thought the latter parts of the film suffered because of the need for plot development which weighed it down a little. Worth seeing though - much better than most of the Simpsons output in recent years.

Did they show a trailer for "The Dark Knight" beforehand?

Not when I saw it, no.
8950  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Ireland Election 2007 on: July 26, 2007, 07:25:28 pm
Gotta love Trinity and it's complete dislike of voting for FF and Pseudo-Independent-FFers.

Protestants!
Pages: 1 ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... 418


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines