This seems to happen at every "peace" rally these people hold. As soon as somebody who doesn't agree with their doctine of hate shows up, they blow a gasket. I find it funny, actually, the hypocrisy of the left wing. They're against violence in a place where people have openly said they hate America, Americans, and Chrstianity, but are all for violence against their fellow citizens. The left thinks it's futile for ProtestWarrior to counter their protests, yet none see how pointless their protests are in the first place? If any of them think that 3,000 people (mostly nonvoters, I'd wager, seeing as a lot of hippies and teens go to these places) shouting anti-Bush left wing propaganda and holding anti-war signs will change foreign policy, then they are very very wrong.

Source

Article:

[quote]Protesting the Protesters
Small Band of Conservatives Comes to Town to Answer Anti-Bush Groups

By Robert MacMillan
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, January 20, 2005; 5:59 PM

Ten minutes after telling his fellow protesters to stay safe, Gil Kobrin lay huddled in the slush and mud as two anarchists repeatedly kicked him in the back.

How he got from point A to point B is simple enough. Kobrin, accompanied by a dozen members of the conservative group ProtestWarrior, crashed a rally of hundreds of anti-Bush demonstrators at Meridian Park in Washington, D.C. Holding aloft signs that read "Say no to war unless a Democrat is president" and "Not to brag, but Bush won, so shove it!" they had set off earlier on inauguration morning in search of their opposites.

The ProtestWarrior contingent didn't have to search for very long; the party came to them.

"You can go a [expletive] half-mile away and stand on the first street corner you see!" shouted a self-described anarchist, dressed all in black with a bandana covering his face. As they taunted and threatened and liberally profaned Kobrin and the rest of the group, a member of the D.C. Anti-War Network (DAWN) -- the official organizers of the rally -- tried to break it up.

"Your purpose is to instigate people. You're going to have to leave!" shouted the "marshal," DAWN's term for their ad hoc security force.

"We're staying here," Kobrin replied.

Then he went down under a hail of black boots. Once the marshals pulled the anarchists away, ProtestWarrior sued for peace and made for the exit. Their chant of "Four more years!" was answered by the anarchists' reply: "Wah wah wah!"

It wasn't much of a contest. ProtestWarrior's contingent numbered 13, the other side in the hundreds. If they won any hearts and minds, no one said so.

"I expected it, but I didn't expect to be kicked in the back," Kobrin said later. His boyish, twentysomething face wore a wry smile and he stood upright, but conceded that he was in some pain.

Kobrin is a dedicated member of ProtestWarrior, a two-year-old group formed to demonstrate against the demonstrators. A theology student from Far Rockaway, Queens, he was the organizer of the group's inauguration day action, code-named "Operation Hail to the Chief."

It was modeled on ProtestWarrior's primary M.O.: mingle with protesters, mix, await angry abuse and epithets and then label the peaceniks as aggressive hypocrites. Meanwhile, a ProtestWarrior videographer records the whole affair to post on the Web site later. Videos already on the site show off ProtestWarrior counter-protests in places such as San Francisco and in New York during the Republican National Convention last August.

The group was founded by Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton when the self-described conservatives, both 30, were living in San Francisco and desperate for a political counterweight to their "overwhelmingly liberal community."

ProtestWarrior might be a bastion of conservative ideals, but its brand of humor is better suited to the hip left, and Alfia wouldn't be out of place in the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog. Born in Tel Aviv, his photo shows he has a face and body built either for a beefcake calendar or a recruitment poster for the Israeli army. Lipton's photo reflects a younger, cooler, better-fed Bill Gates with snazzier glasses.

The group's symbol, meanwhile, is a bare-chested, musclebound hero wielding a sword. It looks like it sprang, Athena-like, from the paperback cover of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

ProtestWarrior's members see themselves as a baker's dozen dedicated to balancing out DAWN, Turn Your Back on Bush, International ANSWER and the myriad other organizations that took to the streets to denounce the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and just about every other liberal bogeyman.

"They hate freedom and hate America," said ProtestWarrior's Dana Forehand, 24, a graphic designer with long brown hair who came down from Astoria, Queens, to mix with the other side of the ideological street.

"I like the idea of reminding these people that they're not the overwhelming majority," said David LaRue, 24, of Humboldt County, Calif. LaRue, unlike a majority of the other ProtestWarrior members, is on his first "infiltration" as they call it. He's worried because he heard that some of their opponents were planning to hurl water balloons at them, a chilling prospect on a sub-freezing morning.

After the scuffle, one young anarchist hurled a snowball, laced with dirt and pebbles and whatever else he could scoop of the ground, at the retreating ProtestWarrior members. The anarchist, who declined to offer his name, said he did not believe in violence, but insisted that "Throwing a snowball... is not going to hurt anybody."

Patrick McKale, 22, an anarchist from Baltimore, said he was pleased that ProtestWarrior members took a few licks. He said he saw no irony in beating people up at a peace rally. "Just because you're anti-imperialist doesn't mean you're not against violence."

Kobrin and several of his comrades held their remaining signs aloft -- under the protection of several D.C. police officers -- as the anti-Bush demonstrators formed a parade to march down 16th Street to McPherson Square.

"Dude, you got your ass kicked," one of them taunted at the ProtestWarrior group. Several anarchists, their bile neutered by the police presence, resorted to creative hand signs. It brought to mind something Kobrin had said in an earlier interview: "Ideally it should be a nice, cordial, open dialogue."

Some in the anti-Bush crowd said they resented the fact that ProtestWarrior's "man bites dog" schtick eats up a disproportionate amount of press attention.

"They're taking the media away from us!" exclaimed one angry protester.

After the fight television crews popped up out of nowhere and reporters rushed to the ProtestWarrior members. But just as soon, they melted away, chasing after the legions of anti-war demonstrators banging on drums and soda cans and carrying cardboard boxes done up as coffins draped in American flags as they hoofed it down 16th St.

Kobrin and the ProtestWarrior crew hung out for a few more minutes before reconnoitering at their car and heading down to 4th and Pennsylvania to get another dose of the action. The drubbing from a few minutes before didn't seem to act as much of a deterrent.

"We're going to hang tight," he said.
[/quote]

You know, if the ProtestWarriors there had attacked any of the protestors, the cops would be arresting people, and they'd be saying how violent conservatives are, etc. All their media pals would be all over it too, only in a negative way.

[quote]"Throwing a snowball... is not going to hurt anybody."[/quote]
A snowball filled with rocks.  :rolleyes:

[quote]"Just because you're anti-imperialist doesn't mean you're not against violence."[/quote]
[quote]"They're taking the media away from us!"[/quote]

Ah, at least they expose themselves.

*shrug*

A small minority of every majority act like dicks. It would be incredibly naiive to think that that principle doesn't apply to the right as well.

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this kind of post, really.

It would be incredibly naiive to think that the right holds peace protests, which is what this topic is about - hypocrisy at peace protests.

It's more or less a post where Hazard, quasi, and I can talk about how hypocritical liberal protestors are. And, obviously, nobody can dispute that fact since this happens at nearly every single one. The protestors get their panties in a wad when somebody who doesn't agree with them shows up.

I think that some of those quotes show the true personality of the extremely active, moronic, leftists.

I MUST say that my favorite LEFT quote I've ever heard was from the ChannelOne Election.  A girl was explaining why she voted for Kerry & said [quote]"I voted for Kerry not because I think he will do a better job..."[/quote]  This is why I'm glad that they don't let highschool students vote & ALMOST wish that they didn't let ppl vote until later on in their life.  Voting @ 18 is good, if you're competent...however most ppl aren't & the LEFTISTS sure want to show themselves not to be.

[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96134#msg96134 date=1106412680]
I think that some of those quotes show the true personality of the extremely active, moronic, leftists.

I MUST say that my favorite LEFT quote I've ever heard was from the ChannelOne Election.  A girl was explaining why she voted for Kerry & said [quote]"I voted for Kerry not because I think he will do a better job..."[/quote]  This is why I'm glad that they don't let highschool students vote & ALMOST wish that they didn't let ppl vote until later on in their life.  Voting @ 18 is good, if you're competent...however most ppl aren't & the LEFTISTS sure want to show themselves not to be.
[/quote] Those people on channel one were a joke. Channel one scrapped up the most uninformend people and had them act as pundits? Give me a break. I do not like channel one, everything from their fruity british guy anchor to the horrible guests the bring on.

Not all the guests are horrible. :P

I think they should lower the voting age if the individual voter can pass a comptence test or something. Like, personally, I think I'm more informed on the stuff that most eligible voters.

Yay for mandatory competency test!  Every 20 years or so...until you're over the age of 60

It would never be allowed though, since that's what they did to keep most blacks from voting. And, most likely, it still would.

Oh please, you're going to talk specifically how hypocritic the left wing is?  This is getting a little old with the conservatives on this forum constantly trying to attack liberals saying that we're all hippie hypocrits who have no importance in anything.  It's not like there's hypocrits on the right wing.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96164#msg96164 date=1106420843]
Oh please, you're going to talk specifically how hypocritic the left wing is? This is getting a little old with the conservatives on this forum constantly trying to attack liberals saying that we're all hippie hypocrits who have no importance in anything. It's not like there's hypocrits on the right wing.
[/quote]

Well, according to left, we're all wealthy Jesus loving racists who, in their spare time, like to shoot things (be it a deer, a crazy liberal, or an Iraqi rebel).

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96164#msg96164 date=1106420843]
Oh please, you're going to talk specifically how hypocritic the left wing is?  This is getting a little old with the conservatives on this forum constantly trying to attack liberals saying that we're all hippie hypocrits who have no importance in anything.  It's not like there's hypocrits on the right wing.
[/quote]

So because you can point out hypocricy elsewhere means that the first case of hypocricy should be ignored?

"You can't arrest me for murder, Big Steve over there did it and he got away with it!"

[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96158#msg96158 date=1106420524]
Yay for mandatory competency test!  Every 20 years or so...until you're over the age of 60
[/quote] Until you are over 60??? No, they need to test old people because they get senial.

Yay for protest warrior.

PS: My chapter's first meeting will be this sunday afternoon. I contacted the local golden corral and we are going to be in that back banquette room probably.  :D
I am expecting a turn out of around 20 members. My chapter has 70 registered members.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=10266.msg96166#msg96166 date=1106420939]
Well, according to left, we're all wealthy Jesus loving racists who, in their spare time, like to shoot things (be it a deer, a crazy liberal, or an Iraqi rebel).
[/quote]

Since it seems we're going to have a conversation about right-wing puff-posts, let me say this:

I have never thought that about anyone here. Most of the right-wing contributors to this forum, however, really do seem to think that anyone left of center is stupid, idiotic, hipocritical, perpetually wrong, and in possession of nothing to offer.

I think you, and everyone, should stop using the word 'hipocrite'. It is overused - to a massive degree - and to no effect. The simple fact is that hipocrites exist on the left and the right, and they are generally easily recognisable. I rarely pay attention to any of them. As should be obvious to everyone, it is not true that the word 'liberal' is synonymous with the word 'hipocrite'. Nor is 'conservative', 'republican', 'democrat', or any other ideology. This persistent claim that hipocrisy is an unavoidable attribute liberalism is just silly. It's also silly to claim that every peace rally ends in violence, that all liberals are hippies, and so on.

As for people getting their panties in a wad over other points of view, I've never seen anyone that suffers from that more than Hazard.

I really wanted this forum to be a place for intelligent debate when I requested to become a moderator of it. I love political debates. No offense, but I think it's been hijacked by absolutist teenagers (?) with no sense of perspective, and I find that sad.

[quote]...but I think it's been hijacked by absolutist teenagers (?) with no sense of perspective, and I find that sad.[/quote]

I think the same could be easily said of you, minus the teenager part.

I am never absolutist :P

I find that surprising. I make an effort to acknowledge other people's points, and I know I've agreed on something with most people here at least once. I don't think I make unconstrained statements about things. I try to qualify potentially sweeping statements so people know what I'm referring to.

In short, I tend not to make statements like:

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10251.msg96152#msg96152 date=1106417743]
But if you let your values and morals degrade your country becomes a cesspool
[/quote]

I think it is quite apparent that not all members of the Left or the Right fall into the category of hypocricy and doesn't really need to be explicitly stated every time we have a conversation.  However, it seems that it is only the far Left (where most of the hypocricy on the Left lies) that gets much air time.  There are plenty of really good, intelligent people out there that are Liberals (Joseph Lieberman is the one that comes immediately to my mind).  But it doesn't seem like we get to hear too much about what they think.  Instead we get to hear stories of Liberals saying how much they hate America and how they want to move to Canada and how Bush is the next Adolf Hitler.  In my opinion, the political Left as a whole is being hurt by this.  I wouldn't sit back and do nothing if a bunch of Fascists were the only voice of the Right, why do so many Democrats seem content to let the Far Left speak for them?

Since I'm in the UK and am not often exposed to the American media, I don't really feel qualified to comment.

I will say, however, that the far right in the US is just as absurd as the far left. Just look at people like Ann Coulter. It wouldn't bother me if someone took all these stupid pundits, on both sides of the political divide, and dropped them off a cliff. It would certainly raise the tone of American political debate.

True, all extremeists should be shot, .. heh, that is a little extreme of me, BUT a very true thing  :P.

[quote]Main Entry:  hypocrite
Part of Speech:  noun
Definition:  pretender
Synonyms:  actor, attitudinizer, backslider, bigot, bluffer, casuist, charlatan, cheat, con man, crook, deceiver, decoy, dissembler, dissimulator, fake, faker, four-flusher, fraud, hook, humbug, imposter, impostor, informer, lip server, malingerer, masquerader, mountebank, pharisee, phony, playactor, poser, pretender, quack, sham, sharper, smoothie, sophist, stool pigeon, swindler, trickster, two-face, two-timer, whited sepulcher, wolf[/quote]
You have to admit that the LEFT is more vocal about their stool pigeonness.  Alec Baldwin, or whoever that guy is, saying he's gonna leave the country when Bush is re-elected, I didn't see any RIGHTS saying that they'd leave if Kerry was next.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96199#msg96199 date=1106426629]
Since I'm in the UK and am not often exposed to the American media, I don't really feel qualified to comment.

I will say, however, that the far right in the US is just as absurd as the far left. Just look at people like Ann Coulter. It wouldn't bother me if someone took all these stupid pundits, on both sides of the political divide, and dropped them off a cliff. It would certainly raise the tone of American political debate.
[/quote]

Pssh, Ann Coulter rocks. She's like a more tasteful, better looking, more intelligent, less misleading, thinner Michael Moore.

The Democratic party had good intentions, and all of the politicians are well educated and I don't mind. For example, John Kerry, Joesph Liberman, John Edwards, Bill Clinton. They all may have bad characteristics, but they're all intelligent. However, when we get all these kids who don't know what they're talking about and say they're Democrats because a) their parents are b) they want something free or c) they want drugs legalized speaking for the party, it gives the world the wrong impression. Michael Moore doesn't help much either, which is why even the Democrats have told him to shut up. I guess they'd want him to, though, since he did help Bush win in both elections. (He worked for Naders campaign in 2000, and we all know Nader took a lot of Gores votes in Florida)

So a group of people went to a protest to cause trouble and got their asskicked by anarchist  keyword their [u]anarchist[/u] last I checked anarchist weren't exactlly the liberal left...

Hm, actually, I've been wondering - why do anarchists consider themselves to be libs? They're anti-Government, which makes no sense. (Government was abolished in some country within the past century (I forget which) and all hell broke loose)

But anyway, if somebody is anti-Government, they'd obviously want less Government involvement and Republicans favor a more laissez-faire form of government.

Well, that's a dangerous road to go down. I very much doubt that there's much difference between Moore and Coulter in reality. I think you like Coulter because you agree with her, and I like Moore because I agree, mostly, with him. You say Moore is a douche (basically), but the stuff I've read by Al Franken about Coulter makes me think that Coulter must be a complete anus. In reality, they're all just as bad as eachother.

PS: This is the perspective to which I was referring earlier.

I think Coulter would give off more of an elitist persona while Moore would just look for ways to make you look like a moron. (Did anyone notice nearly everybody he interviews in BFC he makes look like a total idiot?)

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=10266.msg96212#msg96212 date=1106434166]
Hm, actually, I've been wondering - why do anarchists consider themselves to be libs? They're anti-Government, which makes no sense. (Government was abolished in some country within the past century (I forget which) and all hell broke loose)

But anyway, if somebody is anti-Government, they'd obviously want less Government involvement and Republicans favor a more laissez-faire form of government.
[/quote]

But then, true communism [communism being associated with the political Left] wasn't supposed to be about big government either.

Also, keep in mind that Fascism [being associated with the political right] was just a form of Socialism [which is commonly associated with the political left].

So you can't easilly make distinctions like that.

How is communism NOT a big government?!... they controll absolutely EVERY aspect of the country...what are you smoking?

The hypocricy of the left. *Sigh*

?

[quote]Republicans favor a more laissez-faire form of government.[/quote]
true republicans anyway, this current batch of neo-cons are only interested in their wallets and legislating morality.

[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96223#msg96223 date=1106435678]
How is communism NOT a big government?!... they controll absolutely EVERY aspect of the country...what are you smoking?
[/quote] He said true communism is not supposed to be about big government. I guess he is talking about communism on the villiage / small island scale... the only scale it will work on.

[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96223#msg96223 date=1106435678]
How is communism NOT a big government?!... they controll absolutely EVERY aspect of the country...what are you smoking?
[/quote]

Please read my posts in the future.

I specifically mentioned the idea "true communism."  Whenever you think of the Soviet Union, you are not thinking of true communism.

The points in my previous post still stand.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96263#msg96263 date=1106453781]
[quote]Republicans favor a more laissez-faire form of government.[/quote]
true republicans anyway, this current batch of neo-cons are only interested in their wallets and legislating morality.
[/quote]

Be careful not to step in the leftist bullshit.

People have used that same hippie rhetoric for hundreds of years against president's like Linclon, U.S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelet, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, etc. Don't pretend your stuff is anything we haven't heard before.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96175#msg96175 date=1106422463]
Most of the right-wing contributors to this forum, however, really do seem to think that anyone left of center is stupid, idiotic, hipocritical, perpetually wrong, and in possession of nothing to offer.
[/quote]

What leftist groups are there out there that you see? International ANSWER, DAWN, the Democratic Underground, etc. These groups are stupid, idiotic, hipocritical, perpetually wrong and do possess something to offer, unfortunately they are all bad ideas.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96287#msg96287 date=1106494137]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96263#msg96263 date=1106453781]
[quote]Republicans favor a more laissez-faire form of government.[/quote]
true republicans anyway, this current batch of neo-cons are only interested in their wallets and legislating morality.
[/quote]

Be careful not to step in the leftist bullshit.

People have used that same hippie rhetoric for hundreds of years against president's like Linclon, U.S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelet, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, etc. Don't pretend your stuff is anything we haven't heard before.
[/quote]

Grant was a drunk and possiblly the worst president we have ever had. Roosevelet was nothing super special, just a blown out of pruportion psuedo-superman, Eisenhower was a wartime president and that was about it. Ford I know little to nothing about, I was born to late and his achievments were to small I guess.  Reagen is another of those blown out of pruportion guys, he accomplished shit in his time as president.  Bush(the current one anyway) Has had a presidency to rival Grant's in shittiness. He has done nothing that has helped the country, and he continues to try to legislate on morality which is something I have wrong on the highest level.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96266#msg96266 date=1106455297]
[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96223#msg96223 date=1106435678]
How is communism NOT a big government?!... they controll absolutely EVERY aspect of the country...what are you smoking?
[/quote] He said true communism is not supposed to be about big government. I guess he is talking about communism on the villiage / small island scale... the only scale it will work on.
[/quote]
The only way there could be a small communist government, small in the sense that the government doesn't control ALL aspects of life, is if there were no aspects if life.  Under communism the government controls all property, all businesses, they control everything, how is that small?

In pure communism there is no goverment, in the sense that everyone just does their part, and shares equally.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96287#msg96287 date=1106494137]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96263#msg96263 date=1106453781]
[quote]Republicans favor a more laissez-faire form of government.[/quote]
true republicans anyway, this current batch of neo-cons are only interested in their wallets and legislating morality.
[/quote]

Be careful not to step in the leftist bullshit.

People have used that same hippie rhetoric for hundreds of years against president's like Linclon, U.S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelet, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, etc. Don't pretend your stuff is anything we haven't heard before.
[/quote]

Grant was a drunk and possiblly the worst president we have ever had. Roosevelet was nothing super special, just a blown out of pruportion psuedo-superman, Eisenhower was a wartime president and that was about it. Ford I know little to nothing about, I was born to late and his achievments were to small I guess.  Reagen is another of those blown out of pruportion guys, he accomplished shit in his time as president.  Bush(the current one anyway) Has had a presidency to rival Grant's in shittiness. He has done nothing that has helped the country, and he continues to try to legislate on morality which is something I have wrong on the highest level.
[/quote]

Reagan Blown out of proportion? You claim to be a libertarian but you fail to see his great economic accomplishments? During his presidency we saw kinseanism in action for the first time on a large scale here in the united states.

Since when is the current bush allowing trusts to corrupt the governemnt up to the cabinet level? I see no Credit Mobilier scandal. Please when you answer, avoid using Michael Moorish bs to back up your response. Bush and Grant have absolutly nothing in common, trying to compare the two shows a certain ignorance about the administration of one or the other.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96303#msg96303 date=1106502088]
In pure communism there is no goverment, in the sense that everyone just does their part, and shares equally.
[/quote] Which is exactly why it can only exist on a very small scale... otherwise corruption of the system will set in. That is when we end up wearing green shoes.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96287#msg96287 date=1106494137]
[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96263#msg96263 date=1106453781]
[quote]Republicans favor a more laissez-faire form of government.[/quote]
true republicans anyway, this current batch of neo-cons are only interested in their wallets and legislating morality.
[/quote]

Be careful not to step in the leftist bullshit.

People have used that same hippie rhetoric for hundreds of years against president's like Linclon, U.S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelet, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, etc. Don't pretend your stuff is anything we haven't heard before.
[/quote]

Grant was a drunk and possiblly the worst president we have ever had. Roosevelet was nothing super special, just a blown out of pruportion psuedo-superman, Eisenhower was a wartime president and that was about it. Ford I know little to nothing about, I was born to late and his achievments were to small I guess. Reagen is another of those blown out of pruportion guys, he accomplished shit in his time as president. Bush(the current one anyway) Has had a presidency to rival Grant's in shittiness. He has done nothing that has helped the country, and he continues to try to legislate on morality which is something I have wrong on the highest level.
[/quote]

Wrong. Howard Taft is considered to be the worst president in history.

This shows otherwise: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html

Lincoln is #1, FDR is #2, Washington #3.  Buchanan is last.  Regan is #11.

[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96323#msg96323 date=1106508793]
This shows otherwise: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html

Lincoln is #1, FDR is #2, Washington #3. Buchanan is last. Regan is #11.
[/quote]

Odd, I could have sworn last year in Government we learned Taft was considered the worse. Even whitehouse.gov says he was a poor politician. Anyway...

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/
shows that Taft is rated 1 notch higher than Nixon.

[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96294#msg96294 date=1106500741]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96266#msg96266 date=1106455297]
[quote author=Crazy mormon confused me link=topic=10266.msg96223#msg96223 date=1106435678]
How is communism NOT a big government?!... they controll absolutely EVERY aspect of the country...what are you smoking?
[/quote] He said true communism is not supposed to be about big government. I guess he is talking about communism on the villiage / small island scale... the only scale it will work on.
[/quote]
The only way there could be a small communist government, small in the sense that the government doesn't control ALL aspects of life, is if there were no aspects if life.  Under communism the government controls all property, all businesses, they control everything, how is that small?
[/quote]

I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.

It does not matter, Grant was a 'great' general (if you consider just using overwhelming numbers to be a real innovative strategy), but he was not a great president. He failed to see massive corruption leaking into his administration. There is no similarity between him and Bush.

[quote]Which is exactly why it can only exist on a very small scale... [/quote]
I wasn't arguing that it would work, I was merelly stating.

[quote]There is no similarity between him and Bush. [/quote]
I wasn't really comparing their actions to be similar, I was comparing how they were both really shitty presidents.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
Grant was a drunk and possiblly the worst president we have ever had. Roosevelet was nothing super special, just a blown out of pruportion psuedo-superman, Eisenhower was a wartime president and that was about it. Ford I know little to nothing about, I was born to late and his achievments were to small I guess.  Reagen is another of those blown out of pruportion guys, he accomplished shit in his time as president.  Bush(the current one anyway) Has had a presidency to rival Grant's in shittiness. He has done nothing that has helped the country, and he continues to try to legislate on morality which is something I have wrong on the highest level.
[/quote]

This post is uneducated filth.

I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
Grant was a drunk and possiblly the worst president we have ever had[/quote]

There were far worse Presidents. You obviously know nothing about American presidents based on this comment alone.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
Roosevelet was nothing super special, just a blown out of pruportion psuedo-superman[/quote]

The man was a war hero. Not to mention the fact that he single handedly pioneered the entire idea of a national conservationist movement when he established the National Park system. He initiated the building of the Panama Canal (or do you plan to argue that this is not big deal?), he established the Department of Commerece and Labor. He built up the Navy and formed the concept of "Big Stick Diplomacy." Minor?

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]Eisenhower was a wartime president and that was about it.[/quote]

Again, an American war hero. He was deeply involved in the peace talks that ended the Korean war, he enforced the desegregation of public schools, pushed for the creation of the Internation Atomic Agency, he organized the Army and formed the space program which launched the first American satellites. He brought Alaska and Hawaii as states into the Union and is probably best known for starting to build the mass interstate system in the United States, now known as the Eisenhower Interstate System.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
Ford I know little to nothing about, I was born to late and his achievments were to small I guess.[/quote]

At least you admit your ignorance in the beginning, then assume that just because you don't know what he did it can't be important.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
Reagen is another of those blown out of pruportion guys, he accomplished shit in his time as president.[/quote]

It's spelled Reagan. Yea, bringing around the end of the Cold War without having to fire a shot isn't anything that special. Beating the Russians at their own game, no big deal. Turning a group of people who had lost their faith in being Americans back into a proud people, nothing to talk about. Turning the economy back around, thats not so hard. Your lack of education is glaring. You don't come one of America's favorite President's by not doing anything fantastic.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96290#msg96290 date=1106497528]
Bush(the current one anyway) Has had a presidency to rival Grant's in shittiness. He has done nothing that has helped the country, and he continues to try to legislate on morality which is something I have wrong on the highest level.[/quote]

You sure are into the "legistlate morality" line. Did you read it on a t-shirt or something? Doesn't the Constitution and the rule of law in general frame the legislation of morality? If you don't think so, you should try reading more. Its obvious that you've fallen victim to things that you've heard other people say and are too lazy to realize the truth. What is he trying to legislate? Against the murder of unborn children? We can go on and on about abortion. Against gay marriage? Do you realize that the majority in this country is against homosexual marriages, and we are after all ruled by a majority aren't we? Do you further realize that every state that had an amendment on the ballot banning gay marriage had that amendment passed? Done nothing to help the country? Restoring the military, improving defense, and spreading liberty is something you think you could do better than him? You're a damn fool and thats all there is to it.

Read a book. An objective book. Books by Michael Moore and Dan Rather don't count.

[quote]There were far worse Presidents. You obviously know nothing about American presidents based on this comment alone.
[/quote]
We have had a few shitty presidents, none were much worse than Grant...

[quote]The man was a war hero.[/quote]
The man stormed a hill with a militia in an attack that had made no diffrence in the outcome of the war.

[quote]he enforced the desegregation of public schools,[/quote]
Didn't know that ^^ then again had I thought about it a little common sense probablly would have told me.
[quote]At least you admit your ignorance in the beginning, then assume that just because you don't know what he did it can't be important[/quote]
Well I have never heard of any of his accomplishments in History class.  He is one of those in between presidents that tends to be ignored in class.

[quote]Yea, bringing around the end of the Cold War without having to fire a shot isn't anything that special.[/quote]
How? I have heard this line so many fucking times, and it baffles me each and every time.  What exactlly did reagan do that ended the cold war? 
[quote]You don't come one of America's favorite President's by not doing anything fantastic.[/quote]
Right, you just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

[quote]You sure are into the "legistlate morality" line. Did you read it on a t-shirt or something? Doesn't the Constitution and the rule of law in general frame the legislation of morality? If you don't think so, you should try reading more. Its obvious that you've fallen victim to things that you've heard other people say and are too lazy to realize the truth. What is he trying to legislate? Against the murder of unborn children? We can go on and on about abortion. Against gay marriage? Do you realize that the majority in this country is against homosexual marriages, and we are after all ruled by a majority aren't we? Do you further realize that every state that had an amendment on the ballot banning gay marriage had that amendment passed? Done nothing to help the country? Restoring the military, improving defense, and spreading liberty is something you think you could do better than him? You're a damn fool and thats all there is to it.[/quote]
Our constituoin protects our individual rights. A law is a law to protect other not ones self.  "My right to swing my fist ends where the other mans nose begins" That I believe is the main idea behind the constituion.  Do what ever you want as long as it is hurting no one else. Not really morality, it is more of just not fucking with other people.
Abortion is a subject much like gay marriage that really isn't worth debating.  In the end I just don't give a fuck and my justification will seem stupid to you just as yours seems stupid to me. However I do not believe the majority should be able to supress the minority in such a decision as marriage.  We are more or less taking away their rights because some people think it is icky...

Abortion is TOTALLY different than gay marriage.  Gay marriage, I agree, doesn't infringe upon my rights & I GUESS however morally wrong it is should be allowed, God can judge those people later.

BUT abortion is hitting that "other man" DIRECTLY on the nose...& killing him  That little kid doesn't have a right to live?  I can understand if the child will be born with some sort of horrid disorder that is uncurable, I know I, personally, wouldn't want to have been born & become a burden for my parents...but just because the mother doesn't want the child?...that is crap.

The abortion issue really relies on when you consider a fetus to stop being a mass of cells and become a human.  I personally think abortions should only be legal in the first trimester, as it really is nothing in the first trimester, but others believe it is still a human with a soul.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96407#msg96407 date=1106544983]
The abortion issue really relies on when you consider a fetus to stop being a mass of cells and become a human.  I personally think abortions should only be legal in the first trimester, as it really is nothing in the first trimester, but others believe it is still a human with a soul.
[/quote] How come if I break a sea turtle egg I can go to jail? But when I suck a baby up with a vacume and drop the remains into a waste pail I am perfectly fine provided I went to med school? I think that the thing is alive when the sperm hits the egg myself and I do not think it should occur. People argue that roe v. wade should stand because of the health of the motherboard but from what I have seen abortions for medical reasons were legal before roe v. wade.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg96393#msg96393 date=1106536669]
I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.
[/quote]
What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!

The popular vote doesn't always match the electoral college...

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96407#msg96407 date=1106544983]
The abortion issue really relies on when you consider a fetus to stop being a mass of cells and become a human.  I personally think abortions should only be legal in the first trimester, as it really is nothing in the first trimester, but others believe it is still a human with a soul.
[/quote]

Life upon the very beginings of formation, thats science.

MyndFyre, the liberal horde needs to get back to reality. The electoral college worked EXACTLY as it was supposed to in the 2000 election, and it was the 4th time in history that it had done so. We have the system because so many people are just too stupid to be trusted with the overall vote.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96480#msg96480 date=1106598746]
MyndFyre, you and the liberal horde you side with need to get back to reality. The electoral college worked EXACTLY as it was supposed to in the 2000 election, and it was the 4th time in history that it had done so. We have the system because so many people are just too stupid to be trusted with the overall vote.
[/quote]

He was totally being sarcastic, he voted for Bush!

[quote]We have had a few shitty presidents, none were much worse than Grant...
[/quote]

Why was he so poor? Don't tell me just because he drank he was a bad President.

[quote]The man stormed a hill with a militia in an attack that had made no diffrence in the outcome of the war.[/quote]

Another clear demonstration of how you know nothing about US History and the importance of the Spanish-American War. If you'd like me to explain the importance of his charge, I'd be happy to just admit you know NOTHING about it.

[quote]Didn't know that ^^ then again had I thought about it a little common sense probablly would have told me.[/quote]

If only you would think.

[quote]Well I have never heard of any of his accomplishments in History class.  He is one of those in between presidents that tends to be ignored in class.[/quote]

He oversaw the final withdraw of American troops from Saigon. He also was awarded the Presidental Medal of Freedom by President Clinton, so obviously he was a man of accomplishments you are just too stupid or too lazy to recognize.

[quote]How? I have heard this line so many fucking times, and it baffles me each and every time.  What exactlly did reagan do that ended the cold war?[/quote]

Another grand example of ignorance. He worked hand in hand with Mikahel Gorbachev to bring a peaceful end to the arms race and the Cold War. Consider reading for a change, and check out this article on the matter. He stood up in the face of Communism, something that none of your "great Democratic Presidents" never dared to do, such as in a speech in 1983 when he said "Freedom and democracy, which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history." He masterminded the plan to bring the two superpowers of the world, each with well over 25,000 nuclear weapons, to step down from the brink of a 45 year Cold War. You're either misinformed or stupid if you believe that Reagan's accomplishments can be overstated.

You seem to have all kinds of cliche come backs to Republican President's history looks well upon. Why don't you give me a list of President's you find so amazing in what they did. I bet I don't see more than 1 Republican on it.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=10266.msg96486#msg96486 date=1106599099]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96480#msg96480 date=1106598746]
MyndFyre, you and the liberal horde you side with need to get back to reality. The electoral college worked EXACTLY as it was supposed to in the 2000 election, and it was the 4th time in history that it had done so. We have the system because so many people are just too stupid to be trusted with the overall vote.
[/quote]

He was totally being sarcastic, he voted for Bush!
[/quote]

Very well, edited.

I agree, he sucks at being sarcastic.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10266.msg96451#msg96451 date=1106589503]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg96393#msg96393 date=1106536669]
I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.
[/quote]
What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!
[/quote] He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96492#msg96492 date=1106602315]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10266.msg96451#msg96451 date=1106589503]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg96393#msg96393 date=1106536669]
I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.
[/quote]
What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!
[/quote] He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.
[/quote]

And they probably should since they put more money into this economy then any other states.

If we're gonna say only the rich can go, shoulnd't we go all the way & say only rich white men can vote?...That means about 20 votes for the democrats & maybe a few thousand for the republicans.

(The 200 included the wanna-be ppl in Hollywood that "act" for a living)

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96499#msg96499 date=1106604605]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96492#msg96492 date=1106602315]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10266.msg96451#msg96451 date=1106589503]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg96393#msg96393 date=1106536669]
I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.
[/quote]
What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!
[/quote] He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.
[/quote]

And they probably should since they put more money into this economy then any other states.
[/quote]

You're saying only the wealthy states with high production rates should be allowed to cast ballots? Things were done like that in the early 1800's before it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and now everyone has a voice. Lets just shred the constitution so you and your Democrat pals can win the elections.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96492#msg96492 date=1106602315]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10266.msg96451#msg96451 date=1106589503]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg96393#msg96393 date=1106536669]
I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.
[/quote]
What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!
[/quote] He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.
[/quote]

I fail to see how without the electorial college that California and New York would rule the nation...If the presidency was based on popular vote the removal of the electorial college wouldn't enable California or New York to *always* give the Democrats the win.  Here in California there are tons of Republicans and IIRC there was a close race between the republicans and democrats in the 2004 election.

The point is, the majority of the states, nor the majority of the people, nor the majority of electoral votes sided with John Kerry in this election. During the 2000 election, the majority of the states and the electoral college elected President Bush. The electoral college will not be removed because it ensures fairness in the system. Remember the Virginia and New Jersey plans being formed so there is equal representation in elections and in congress? The fact is, the Democrats are the ones pushing for popular vote because it suits their own interests and nobody elses. Unfortunately for them, it really backfired this election.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96528#msg96528 date=1106614152]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96492#msg96492 date=1106602315]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10266.msg96451#msg96451 date=1106589503]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg96393#msg96393 date=1106536669]
I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.
[/quote]
What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!
[/quote] He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.
[/quote]

I fail to see how without the electorial college that California and New York would rule the nation...If the presidency was based on popular vote the removal of the electorial college wouldn't enable California or New York to *always* give the Democrats the win.  Here in California there are tons of Republicans and IIRC there was a close race between the republicans and democrats in the 2004 election.
[/quote]If we did not have elctoral college though the more populated states would be able to get plenty of pork through the legislature because our elected executive officials would be able to get it into congress and also and maybe even able to play with appropriated funds. I am not talking about democrat or republican I am talking about strictly metropolistic areas and the rest of the country.

Is 'pork' your word for the week? :P

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=10266.msg96542#msg96542 date=1106623569]
Is 'pork' your word for the week? :P
[/quote] yeah! I can use it in so many ways. Such as: pork barrel spending, I like to eat pork, I porked your mom, so on and so fourth  :D

OH that is wrong...just so SO wrong.

My understanding is that the electorial college applys only to the presidential election, so I don't understand why you'd say New York and California would control the nation...Every state has electorial votes proportionate to their population, so what's wrong with getting rid of the electorial college when the popular vote is just fine.  Your statement makes no sense (at least to my understanding).  There are republicans in those democratic states, and in California it's practically 50/50.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96549#msg96549 date=1106630119]
My understanding is that the electorial college applys only to the presidential election, so I don't understand why you'd say New York and California would control the nation...Every state has electorial votes proportionate to their population, so what's wrong with getting rid of the electorial college when the popular vote is just fine.  Your statement makes no sense (at least to my understanding).  There are republicans in those democratic states, and in California it's practically 50/50.
[/quote]

54% of people in California voted for Kerry.  45% of people voted for Bush.  That's not 50/50. 

The electoral college sucks, it's an outdated system.  I'd vouch for popular vote just because it seems more fair and direct, not because it would help those who I support - unlike Hazard would lead you to believe.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96524#msg96524 date=1106611397]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96499#msg96499 date=1106604605]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96492#msg96492 date=1106602315]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10266.msg96451#msg96451 date=1106589503]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg96393#msg96393 date=1106536669]
I don't think hismajesty/trust limited his comment to their actions only.  Also, Bush is STILL president so it wouldn't be were, it would have to be IS...he could still change in 4 yrs to match what you want him to do.
[/quote]
What do you mean that Bush is "still" President?  He wasn't President in the last term!  To hell with the constitution, more people voted for Gore!
[/quote] He was elected perfectly fair. If we did not have electoral college new york and california would rule the nation and you can bet that a lot more money would be sucked up by pork for those two states.
[/quote]

And they probably should since they put more money into this economy then any other states.
[/quote]

You're saying only the wealthy states with high production rates should be allowed to cast ballots? Things were done like that in the early 1800's before it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and now everyone has a voice. Lets just shred the constitution so you and your Democrat pals can win the elections.
[/quote]

Yes I am constitution shredder, I hate it I hate it I hate it because the constitution sucks sucks sucks!  Haha, anyways, yes that is what I am saying and that is exactly what I typed out: "I am saying only the wealthy states with high production rates should be allowed to cast ballots."  That's exactly what it says a few posts above.

I was being a bit promiscuous when I said 50/50, but IIRC the number of republicans in California is going up.  And suffice it to say, the removal of the electorial college wouldn't make California and New York the nations controllers.  Perhaps not New York, but in California, there's a lot of republican party support, and if you add up the votes from California and other states from the republicans it'd be fair.  In nearly all cases the person who won the popular vote won the electorial college, except for a few (maybe one?) which included the 2000 election which Gore should've won since he won the popular vote by over 500,000 people in the argument that the electorial college should be done away with.

What's a good reason to get rid of the electoral college? Except to, of course, give Democrats more of an advantage.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=10266.msg96560#msg96560 date=1106652500]
What's a good reason to get rid of the electoral college? Except to, of course, give Democrats more of an advantage.
[/quote]

Apparently not.  Bush won by a large margin, the Dems lost House and Senate seats as well as gubernatorial positions.  They really lost across the board.

And it was all with the popular vote, not the electorial votes.  Quasi, I think I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't particuarily matter.  You're concerned that because California and New York have such large populations that a large portion of votes would come from those two states hence "controlling" the vote.  However, they have a dominating number of electorial votes so it doesn't really matter IMO.

Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?

In the electorial college they do, because it's proportionate to population, so why does the electorial college even matter anymore especially considering every other vote is based on the popular and that the whole reason for the electorial college is because they didn't trust citizens to vote for the proper presidential candidate which seems to no longer be an issue today.

I do feel that the electoral college is ALMOST a complete waste, we shoud do away with it & then enforce a competency exam!

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96585#msg96585 date=1106683337]
In the electorial college they do, because it's proportionate to population
[/quote]

Not really. Smaller states have fewer votes obviously, but they have more votes per person than larger ones. That's the whole point. Seems rather undemocratic really.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96576#msg96576 date=1106673649]
Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?
[/quote]

Because its not the system agreed upon by the Union. Small states must have some sort of equal representation, otherwise the larger states would dominate the smaller states. However, larger states must have a proportional representation  in legislature. This is how the House and the Senate came about. To satisfy small states, all are equal in the Senate. To satisfy large states, they have more seats in the House.

dxo, what you said was that states that are more wealthy than other should be able to have a larger voice. Thats like saying that rich people should have a LEGAL basis for having more say so in politics than poor people.

Also, of course Democrats support a straight % election. Registered Democrats in this country outnumber registered Republicans by nearly 6%. The entire point of the electoral college is to prevent fiascos like the electoin of 1800 from happening again. It is also to give a portion of the electing power to the states, remember the New Jersey plan?

The only people who bitch about the electoral college are 2000 Gore supporters who lost fair and square, as had happend 4 times in the past, and still can't get over it.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96549#msg96549 date=1106630119]
My understanding is that the electorial college applys only to the presidential election, so I don't understand why you'd say New York and California would control the nation...Every state has electorial votes proportionate to their population, so what's wrong with getting rid of the electorial college when the popular vote is just fine.  Your statement makes no sense (at least to my understanding).  There are republicans in those democratic states, and in California it's practically 50/50.
[/quote] Because without it politicians would drop their drawers to the two big states because they would have the most voters there. This way the politicians cannot just promise to give la, new york, san fran, san diego, new stadiums and get elected.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96576#msg96576 date=1106673649]
Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?
[/quote] Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96603#msg96603 date=1106687044]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96576#msg96576 date=1106673649]
Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?
[/quote] Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.
[/quote]

So ironic that you argue for capitalism where the large businesses really screw all of the smaller businesses.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96601#msg96601 date=1106686417]
dxo, what you said was that states that are more wealthy than other should be able to have a larger voice. Thats like saying that rich people should have a LEGAL basis for having more say so in politics than poor people.
[/quote]

If I had a penny everytime someone pulled a "that's like saying" then I'd be a rich man by now. 

And by your own argument your vote would be worth more than a poorer persons because you contribute more money into the economy.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96649#msg96649 date=1106697390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96603#msg96603 date=1106687044]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96576#msg96576 date=1106673649]
Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?
[/quote] Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.
[/quote]

So ironic that you argue for capitalism where the large businesses really screw all of the smaller businesses.

[/quote] States != Companies. There is really no similarity.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96594#msg96594 date=1106685444]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96585#msg96585 date=1106683337]
In the electorial college they do, because it's proportionate to population
[/quote]

Not really. Smaller states have fewer votes obviously, but they have more votes per person than larger ones. That's the whole point. Seems rather undemocratic really.
[/quote]

The difference is somewhat trivial, though.  I don't recall what the actual number is, but the number of Representatives per state is determined by population; considering that constitutes 436 of the 538 electoral college seats (81%), I would say that the inclusion of the Senate seats gives the smaller states SOME kind of representation.  (The numbers are based on 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 1 Representative/2 Senate - equivalent votes from DC).

Liberal theory supports preventing "tyranny of the majority."

Another important thing to note is that, had the 2000 election occurred under a nationwide-popular-vote system, a Florida-like situation could be duplicated across the entire country instead of just in a specific state or community, which would be quite a mess.

I could only imagine the margin of error in a staight popular election would be quite high.

That could be eliminated with new voting systems.  From what I heard the electronic voting machines were quite accurate and effective.  Keep in mind that I'm arguing from perspective like Arta stressed we all do, and as such I'm not necessarily fighting to get the electorial college removed, just arguing for reasons why it's not necessary anymore; but I'll admit it does serve its cause, but perhaps its cause is out-dated in this world as its reason doesn't really apply anymore.

Part of the point of an electoral college is to mantain fairness in the system, rather than having a situation where one group becomes overly dominant and can rule with an iron fist.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96742#msg96742 date=1106749284]
That could be eliminated with new voting systems.  From what I heard the electronic voting machines were quite accurate and effective.  Keep in mind that I'm arguing from perspective like Arta stressed we all do, and as such I'm not necessarily fighting to get the electorial college removed, just arguing for reasons why it's not necessary anymore; but I'll admit it does serve its cause, but perhaps its cause is out-dated in this world as its reason doesn't really apply anymore.
[/quote]Of course it still applies, created to keep stupid zombies choosing the next president & there still exsist a bunch of stupid zombies.

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96655#msg96655 date=1106699210]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96649#msg96649 date=1106697390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96603#msg96603 date=1106687044]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96576#msg96576 date=1106673649]
Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?
[/quote] Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.
[/quote]

So ironic that you argue for capitalism where the large businesses really screw all of the smaller businesses.

[/quote] States != Companies. There is really no similarity.
[/quote]

Yeah I know companies are more horrible and only do what's best for their shareholders; unlike states who try and do what the majority of their constituents want and also uphold the full faith and credit clause with other states.  So it's not so bad that a larger state screws over a smaller state as compared to a larger business screwing over a smaller business.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=10266.msg96663#msg96663 date=1106700070]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96594#msg96594 date=1106685444]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=10266.msg96585#msg96585 date=1106683337]
In the electorial college they do, because it's proportionate to population
[/quote]

Not really. Smaller states have fewer votes obviously, but they have more votes per person than larger ones. That's the whole point. Seems rather undemocratic really.
[/quote]

The difference is somewhat trivial, though.  I don't recall what the actual number is, but the number of Representatives per state is determined by population; considering that constitutes 436 of the 538 electoral college seats (81%), I would say that the inclusion of the Senate seats gives the smaller states SOME kind of representation.  (The numbers are based on 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 1 Representative/2 Senate - equivalent votes from DC).

Liberal theory supports preventing "tyranny of the majority."
[/quote]

Generally any state with more than 11 electoral votes will be underrepresented in comparison to population. 
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/ElectorAllocation.phtml?sort=Popu

I still don't understand what is wrong with a direct vote (for the president).  No one has presented an clear arguements against it.  Some have presented arguments (see quasi-modo's wonderfully insightful post about the legislature) that make no sense since no one is advocating abolishing congress rather just the electoral college.  Instead, people have beat around the Bush and blamed democrats for wanting to get rid of the electoral college (which has nothing to do with the argument).  So, it makes me wonder why people (particularly the republicans on this board) are so apprehensive to abolishing the electoral college when their own candidate won the majority vote?  Just doesn't make sense and perhaps has to do something with Bush being elected despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and the slight fear that he may not be reelected had popular vote been enacted (which should be quelled by now since he won).

Its an electoral system with roots deeply embedded in tradition for one thing.

Second, it is a tried and true manner of represting popular vote vs. state's rights to have a say in government.

Third, and perhaps most importantly it prevents voting fiascos. If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power, creating a possible situation where the winner of an election could recieve say, only 42% of the popular vote. Is this just? There are more arguments against a popular vote than for it, try reading dxo.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96822#msg96822 date=1106784328]
Its an electoral system with roots deeply embedded in tradition for one thing.
[/quote]

Slaves.  And yes, I am comparing slavery to the electoral college because slavery was a huge factor in the creation of the electoral college.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96822#msg96822 date=1106784328]
Second, it is a tried and true manner of represting popular vote vs. state's rights to have a say in government.
[/quote]

State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no!

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96822#msg96822 date=1106784328]
Third, and perhaps most importantly it prevents voting fiascos. If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power, creating a possible situation where the winner of an election could recieve say, only 42% of the popular vote. Is this just? There are more arguments against a popular vote than for it, try reading dxo.
[/quote]

While we're on the subject of theoretical situations, why don't I toss out a few "creating a possible situations."  With the current electoral college, it is possible that the electors will vote against the will of the people.  Oh and what happens if there is a tie?  Why then the states (note that they only get 1 vote each thereby letting say Montana have as much power as California) get to choose the president, not the people.

I've bet you've heard this argument against a direct election: "The candidates will only visit the most populated states."  My response:  Yeah, like the electoral college stops them from only visiting swing states.  Here's another popular one (already mentioned in this thread): "A direct vote recount will be super bad."  My response:  Someone should calculate this but I am willing to bet that the margin between the candidates of the popular vote is larger than say the vote in florida in 2000.  But in any case, we're so concerned with recount when the whole point of recounting is to get a more accurate picture.  I fail to see what is wrong with that.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96805#msg96805 date=1106777636]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96655#msg96655 date=1106699210]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96649#msg96649 date=1106697390]
[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg96603#msg96603 date=1106687044]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=10266.msg96576#msg96576 date=1106673649]
Why shouldn't states with more people have more of a say?
[/quote] Because the large states could really screw all of the other states.
[/quote]

So ironic that you argue for capitalism where the large businesses really screw all of the smaller businesses.

[/quote] States != Companies. There is really no similarity.
[/quote]

Yeah I know companies are more horrible and only do what's best for their shareholders; unlike states who try and do what the majority of their constituents want and also uphold the full faith and credit clause with other states.  So it's not so bad that a larger state screws over a smaller state as compared to a larger business screwing over a smaller business.

[/quote] That is some of the most retarded stuff I have ever heard. There is an enormous difference between one group of people taking all of the funds and leaving the people in the other states poor and uneducated and a company buying out another and maybe some of the other companies employees getting layed off or something.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96847#msg96847 date=1106792612]
Slaves.  And yes, I am comparing slavery to the electoral college because slavery was a huge factor in the creation of the electoral college.[/quote]

Go back to school. The point of the electoral college was to prevent uneducated people from having too much voting power, this was well before there was equal sufferage in the first place. Get your facts straight before you make an ass of yourself.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96847#msg96847 date=1106792612]
State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no![/quote]

It was a neccessary provision to pacify the concerns of all the states. You do remember why the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written right? I don't think you do.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96847#msg96847 date=1106792612]
While we're on the subject of theoretical situations, why don't I toss out a few "creating a possible situations."  With the current electoral college, it is possible that the electors will vote against the will of the people.  Oh and what happens if there is a tie?  Why then the states (note that they only get 1 vote each thereby letting say Montana have as much power as California) get to choose the president, not the people.[/quote]

Very unlikely. You don't even know how the system works. The popular election in each state elects a delegation that actually casts their ballots for the President. The party that wins the popular vote sends their delegation to cast their ballots. Of course, the parties choose fiercely loyal party members to cast their ballots, so the odds of having a "spy" or a "dissenter" are next to nil. You'll also notice, that Montana and California do not have equal electoral votes. Another example of how you are incompetant.

[quote author=dxor.!?]State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no![/quote]

ACTUALLY...we're a republic.  We have representation otherwise it would take FOREVER to get ANY bill/law passed because EVERYONE would have to vote.  A true democracy is very impractical.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96859#msg96859 date=1106794857]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96847#msg96847 date=1106792612]
Slaves.  And yes, I am comparing slavery to the electoral college because slavery was a huge factor in the creation of the electoral college.[/quote]

Go back to school. The point of the electoral college was to prevent uneducated people from having too much voting power, this was well before there was equal sufferage in the first place. Get your facts straight before you make an ass of yourself.
[/quote]

Haha don't even start questioning my credentials.  Yes the point of the electoral college was to prevent uneducated people form have too much voting power.  However, there is more to it than just that.  The states in the south were scared because they knew slaves wouldn't be able to vote and hence would have less power if there was a direct vote.  So, they lobbied for an electoral college like system and they got it.  The electoral college was a hack put together in an attempt to satisfy everyone.  History is quite interesting once you look beyond what you learned in high school, eh?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96859#msg96859 date=1106794857]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96847#msg96847 date=1106792612]
State's will always have a say in the government.  But electing who runs this country is not the job of the state, rather the people.  That is what we like to call democracy.  In any case, the presidential election has nothing to do with state's rights.  Or maybe you're arguing that California and New York are going to gang up on Colorado in some mass conspiracy to take away Colorado's vote.  Oh no![/quote]

It was a neccessary provision to pacify the concerns of all the states. You do remember why the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written right? I don't think you do.
[/quote]

Necessary provision?  Maybe then, not today.  Note that the great compromise, was a compromise.  The bill of rights has nothing to do with the electoral college.  States will always have power, abolishing the electoral is not going to take anything away from the rights of the state.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96859#msg96859 date=1106794857]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96847#msg96847 date=1106792612]
While we're on the subject of theoretical situations, why don't I toss out a few "creating a possible situations."  With the current electoral college, it is possible that the electors will vote against the will of the people.  Oh and what happens if there is a tie?  Why then the states (note that they only get 1 vote each thereby letting say Montana have as much power as California) get to choose the president, not the people.[/quote]

Very unlikely. You don't even know how the system works. The popular election in each state elects a delegation that actually casts their ballots for the President. The party that wins the popular vote sends their delegation to cast their ballots. Of course, the parties choose fiercely loyal party members to cast their ballots, so the odds of having a "spy" or a "dissenter" are next to nil. You'll also notice, that Montana and California do not have equal electoral votes. Another example of how you are incompetant.
[/quote]

You don't know how to the system works.  Faithless electors are common and you as a self-proclaimed expert should know this (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm).  Montana and California do have equal votes if the election goes to the house of representatives because of a tie in the electoral college, as I said.  Who's incompetant?

Edit: I also recall a West Virgian elector saying he wouldn't vote for Bush.  Although, he did end up voting for him but he threatened not to!

[quote]If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power[/quote]
I fail to see how that could be in any way shape or form a bad thing.

[quote]Go back to school.[/quote]
Heed your own advice, slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person.  Gaining southern states a larger representation in both congress and the ec

dxo, the Bill of Rights was a compromise too.

[quote author=Forged link=topic=10266.msg96874#msg96874 date=1106798981]
[quote]If you are to go to a direct system, you create an opening for a third major party to rise to power[/quote]
I fail to see how that could be in any way shape or form a bad thing.
[/quote]

I totally agree. We have a viable third party on the rise here, which I think is fantastic, because the two major parties are just as useless as the republicans and democrats.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]
Haha don't even start questioning my credentials.[/quote]
I do question them.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]
You don't know how to the system works.[/quote]
I've studied it at length. It looks like you just believe what your parents and peers have told you about it.


[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]Faithless electors are common and you as a self-proclaimed expert should know this (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm).[/quote]
You present a blatantly biased website as evidence? Wow.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]Montana and California do have equal votes if the election goes to the house of representatives because of a tie in the electoral college, as I said.  Who's incompetant?[/quote]

If there is no victor in the electoral college the vote will be determined by the house. In this case, you ignorant bastard, California, having more representatives, has more votes. Christ try reading.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]
Edit: I also recall a West Virgian elector saying he wouldn't vote for Bush.  Although, he did end up voting for him but he threatened not to!
[/quote]

I'm going to kill you! I really won't, but I'm threatening to!

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96959#msg96959 date=1106859295]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]
Haha don't even start questioning my credentials.[/quote]
I do question them.
[/quote]

Well since you want to go that route.  I go to Dartmouth College, you?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96959#msg96959 date=1106859295]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]
You don't know how to the system works.[/quote]
I've studied it at length. It looks like you just believe what your parents and peers have told you about it.
[/quote]

No, mostly I've just read the Constitution and it's several amendments.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96959#msg96959 date=1106859295]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]Faithless electors are common and you as a self-proclaimed expert should know this (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm).[/quote]
You present a blatantly biased website as evidence? Wow.
[/quote]

How can a website be biased when it is presenting fact?  You think it made up faithless voters for some liberal agenda?  Haha, oh my.

Here's another site so you can say it's biased too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Faithless_electors

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96959#msg96959 date=1106859295]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]Montana and California do have equal votes if the election goes to the house of representatives because of a tie in the electoral college, as I said.  Who's incompetant?[/quote]

If there is no victor in the electoral college the vote will be determined by the house. In this case, you ignorant bastard, California, having more representatives, has more votes. Christ try reading.
[/quote]

You try reading.  According to the 12th amendment it specifically states:

[quote]
and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote
[/quote]

You can check this for yourself on any website of your choosing as I am reluctant to post a website because you'll probably argue that it's biased.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96959#msg96959 date=1106859295]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96865#msg96865 date=1106797604]
Edit: I also recall a West Virgian elector saying he wouldn't vote for Bush.  Although, he did end up voting for him but he threatened not to!
[/quote]

I'm going to kill you! I really won't, but I'm threatening to!
[/quote]

That's illegal.  Thought you were a law abiding citizen?  Guess not.

Does the election of 1800 mean anything to you?

And because you go to a University it makes you knowledgable on the electoral system?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96964#msg96964 date=1106860616]
Does the election of 1800 mean anything to you?
[/quote]

Yes, it was the whole reason the 12th amendment came about and later ratified in 1804!

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96965#msg96965 date=1106860663]
And because you go to a University it makes you knowledgable on the electoral system?
[/quote]

I don't go to a university.

You do realize that college = university correct?

All of the following is form http://www.eac.gov/docs/eleccoll.pdf the authors being real experts on the electoral college. Read it and learn something dxo.

The electoral college:
-Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a fair distribution of popular support to be elected
-Enhances the status of minority interests
-Contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system and
-Mantains a federal system of government and representation.

Let me remind all of you who have lost sight of the truth that the United States is not a direct democracy. It is, in fact, a representative democracy (I view it as a constitutional Republic, but that is another issue). The fact is, in a representative democracy, the Electoral College is a perfect fit.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96971#msg96971 date=1106862361]
All of the following is form http://www.eac.gov/docs/eleccoll.pdf the authors being real experts on the electoral college. Read it and learn something dxo.

The electoral college:
-Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a fair distribution of popular support to be elected
-Enhances the status of minority interests
-Contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two party system and
-Mantains a federal system of government and representation.

Let me remind all of you who have lost sight of the truth that the United States is not a direct democracy. It is, in fact, a representative democracy (I view it as a constitutional Republic, but that is another issue). The fact is, in a representative democracy, the Electoral College is a perfect fit.
[/quote]

Funny thing about that document is that I have posted it before to explain to quasi (or someone else) why and how the electoral college was setup.  It also outlines several of my arguments quite clearly and even explains how the 12th amendment has affected the electoral college (which I hope you have been set straight about).

However, what I have a problem with is your conservative stance.  Typically, conservatives are concerned with interpretation, specifically in the manner the fouding fathers wanted it to be interpreted.  You seem conservative, at least self-proclaimed, yet you support a two-party system?  It was the founding fathers belief that political parties were evil and would go against the very fabric that America was built upon. 

As for fair distribution, there will always be red states and blue states.  There is no way you're ever going to get a fair distribution.  And minority interests, I would argue that a direct election would in fact enhance minority interests moreso than the electoral college does.  The other arugements are fruitless because a) people not the states should elect who they want to represent them and abolishing the electoral college would not take any rights away from the states b) a two-party system is inherently bad.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg96969#msg96969 date=1106861881]
You do realize that college = university correct?
[/quote]

Actually, at Dartmouth we pride ourselves on not being a University.  Typically Universities are associated with large classes, research and graduate programs.  Dartmouth is an undergraduate institution, a college, that is focused on it's students and our interests.

Don't argue with me, argue with the professionals who have been envolved in the system for decades since you seem to have all the answers for them.

Is Dartmouth fun?... It seems like the ppl that go there might be a little stuck up.

But yeah, I do agree that colleges aren't universities.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=college
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=university

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97013#msg97013 date=1106872516]
Is Dartmouth fun?... It seems like the ppl that go there might be a little stuck up.
[/quote]

Some of the kids here are stuck up and that sucks because they tend to be wound up in their own ways.  But for the most part a lot of them are more open minded than closed minded.  Best and smallest ivy school!

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg96974#msg96974 date=1106863864]


Funny thing about that document is that I have posted it before to explain to quasi (or someone else) why and how the electoral college was setup.  It also outlines several of my arguments quite clearly and even explains how the 12th amendment has affected the electoral college (which I hope you have been set straight about).
[/quote] I really do not need it explained to me, I know why it exists and the fac thtat it is still neccessary.


[quote]However, what I have a problem with is your conservative stance.  Typically, conservatives are concerned with interpretation, specifically in the manner the fouding fathers wanted it to be interpreted.  You seem conservative, at least self-proclaimed, yet you support a two-party system?  It was the founding fathers belief that political parties were evil and would go against the very fabric that America was built upon.  [/quote] Washington did not want parties, but lets look a few years beyond him, parties formed pretty quirkly. There is a clear political spectrum that forms when you talk about Madison, Jefferson, Adams (either one), and some other early presidents. I would consider these people to be founding fathers too.

Sure, best of the Ivys... that says a lot.

Dartmouth is a WAY super good school.  Girl I know, last year's valedictorian, goes there now...I think she likes it alot.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97023#msg97023 date=1106875416]
Dartmouth is a WAY super good school.  Girl I know, last year's valedictorian, goes there now...I think she likes it alot.
[/quote] I should hope so. Otherwise you are not getting what you pay for it (or what your scolarship pays for it, whatever).

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=10266.msg97020#msg97020 date=1106875006]
Sure, best of the Ivys... that says a lot.
[/quote] Yeah, what subject?

[quote author=quasi-modo link=topic=10266.msg97024#msg97024 date=1106875480]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97023#msg97023 date=1106875416]
Dartmouth is a WAY super good school.  Girl I know, last year's valedictorian, goes there now...I think she likes it alot.
[/quote] I should hope so. Otherwise you are not getting what you pay for it (or what your scolarship pays for it, whatever).
[/quote]Word, it is WAY FREAKIN expensive from what I remember.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97023#msg97023 date=1106875416]
Dartmouth is a WAY super good school.  Girl I know, last year's valedictorian, goes there now...I think she likes it alot.
[/quote]

[me=dxoigmn]becomes a detective[/me]

Is her name Nicole or Laura?

I'm not all that impressed with the kind of people I've met at Ivys. Give me a good ol' fashioned state school... or maybe Wake Forest.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg97038#msg97038 date=1106879032]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97023#msg97023 date=1106875416]
Dartmouth is a WAY super good school.  Girl I know, last year's valedictorian, goes there now...I think she likes it alot.
[/quote]

[me=dxoigmn]becomes a detective[/me]

Is her name Nicole or Laura?
[/quote]
Nicole?... who is that?  What is her last name.

;) I know a Laura that goes there, from Mayfield highschool....sorta stuckup in her own way.  :) way awesome, this is weird

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97050#msg97050 date=1106880636]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=10266.msg97038#msg97038 date=1106879032]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97023#msg97023 date=1106875416]
Dartmouth is a WAY super good school.  Girl I know, last year's valedictorian, goes there now...I think she likes it alot.
[/quote]

[me=dxoigmn]becomes a detective[/me]

Is her name Nicole or Laura?
[/quote]
Nicole?... who is that?  What is her last name.

;) I know a Laura that goes there, from Mayfield highschool....sorta stuckup in her own way.  :) way awesome, this is weird
[/quote]

Two people in the facebook from Las Cruces.  Nicole Clarkson and Laura Reyes.

Know the Laura, Nicole may have gone to one of the other 2 high schools...I don't know for sure though...I'm a band geek/nerd & usu hang out with ppl somewhat related to music.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=10266.msg97087#msg97087 date=1106893181]
Know the Laura, Nicole may have gone to one of the other 2 high schools...I don't know for sure though...I'm a band geek/nerd & usu hang out with ppl somewhat related to music.
[/quote]

Says she went to Mayfield.

Nicole did?... hmm, oh well...who knows then  I know Laura though.  That is so weird

Nicole! Holy shit! Nicole with the hair and the eyes! I lost my virginity to that girl!  ;)