Is it just me or is it ironic to everyone that liberals use the first amendment to protect themselves against idiotic and slanderous things they say... and then go to attack the electoral college, clearly expressed in the Constitution, saying that the popular vote winner should be president?

Talk about liberal integrity. :rolleyes:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Is it just me or is it ironic to everyone that liberals use the first amendment to protect themselves against idiotic and slanderous things they say... and then go to attack the electoral college, clearly expressed in the Constitution, saying that the popular vote winner should be president?

Talk about liberal integrity. :rolleyes:

And say we shouldn't be able to have guns.

That's obviously a reference to me there. Look:

1. I've never said one word about guns.

2. So you believe the First Amendment should be amended to protect only nonidiotic speech? This is what you are implying. Will you be deciding what is idiotic for us all?

3. It isn't even clear to me you know what "slander" means.

4. I'm suggesting the Constitution be changed so that the presidential candidate who gets the most votes almost always wins. I fail to see the inconsistency. I've said nothing at all about the First Amendment.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 20 2003, 06:54 PM-->

RochesterFalcon Wrote:That's obviously a reference to me there. Look:

1. I've never said one word about guns.

Was I talking to you?

RochesterFalcon Wrote:2. So you believe the First Amendment should be amended to protect only nonidiotic speech? This is what you are implying. Will you be deciding what is idiotic for us all?

No, He's saying that libs love to talk about freedom of speech (and freedom of speech is a great thing) but ignore other parts of the constitution.

Quote:Was I talking to you?

I don't know very many people calling for reform of the electoral college. It sounded like it.

Quote:I'm suggesting the Constitution be changed so that the presidential candidate who gets the most votes almost always wins

Almost always???

Is it just me or was Gore one of the few, or the only, candidate ever to win the popular, but not the electoral?

Quote:Almost always???

Again, I'd like to see two electoral votes subtracted from each state and the District of Columbia so that the college better reflects the population. This would make it less likely that a candidate could win without a plurality of the popular vote -- but it wouldn't make it impossible.

A winning candidate could eek out slim pluralities in a bunch of states while the losing candidate rolls up huge majorities in a few big states.

On Nate's question: This has happened at least three times before:

-- 1888, when Benjamin Harrison (5,439,853) beat Grover Cleveland (5,540,309).
-- 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes (4,036,298) beat Samuel J. Tilden (4,300,590). This result was widely seen as crooked. Four states' electoral votes were in dispute. Boiled down, Congress gave them all to Hayes, the Republican, in exchange for an agreement to end Reconstruction. As a result, Harrison won by one electoral vote.
-- 1824, when John Quincy Adams (108,740) beat Andrew Jackson (153,544), his main opponent. (This election was decided by the House of Representatives because no candidate could get a majority of the electoral vote. Jackson actually received more electoral votes).

No records of the popular vote were kept before 1824, according to the National Archives.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:Was I talking to you?

I don't know very many people calling for reform of the electoral college. It sounded like it.

I was talking about the gun thing.

RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:Almost always???

Again, I'd like to see two electoral votes subtracted from each state and the District of Columbia so that the college better reflects the population. This would make it less likely that a candidate could win without a plurality of the popular vote -- but it wouldn't make it impossible.

A winning candidate could eek out slim pluralities in a bunch of states while the losing candidate rolls up huge majorities in a few big states.

On Nate's question: This has happened at least three times before:

-- 1888, when Benjamin Harrison (5,439,853) beat Grover Cleveland (5,540,309).
-- 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes (4,036,298) beat Samuel J. Tilden (4,300,590). This result was widely seen as crooked. Four states' electoral votes were in dispute. Boiled down, Congress gave them all to Hayes, the Republican, in exchange for an agreement to end Reconstruction. As a result, Harrison won by one electoral vote.
-- 1824, when John Quincy Adams (108,740) beat Andrew Jackson (153,544), his main opponent. (This election was decided by the House of Representatives because no candidate could get a majority of the electoral vote. Jackson actually received more electoral votes).

No records of the popular vote were kept before 1824, according to the National Archives.

So this has happened what... 4 times out of 49?

ALMOST ALWAYS...

(04-20-2003 10:39 AM)nate jonesacc Wrote:  Is it just me or is it ironic to everyone that liberals use the first amendment to protect themselves against idiotic and slanderous things they say... and then go to attack the electoral college, clearly expressed in the Constitution, saying that the popular vote winner should be president?

Talk about liberal integrity. :rolleyes:

I'm from the future. Trust me man, it gets worse.

(07-31-2014 04:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I'm from the future. Trust me man, it gets worse.

Yep.

God help us.

Yep, it's only liberals who distort the Constitution when it suits their needs, conservatives would never do such things.

(07-31-2014 04:31 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yep, it's only liberals who distort the Constitution when it suits their needs, conservatives would never do such things.

Examples?

(07-31-2014 04:31 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yep, it's only liberals who distort the Constitution when it suits their needs, conservatives would never do such things.

Good point. Welcome aboard.

Cons who clain federal income taxes are unconstitutional.
Cons who claim there really isn't a separation of church and state because those exact words are not in the Constitution.


Certainly not all cons believe these, however, you would be hard pressed to convince me that all liberals want to do away with the electoral college.

Seperation of church and state is not written in the Constitution .... It isn't.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-31-2014 05:13 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Seperation of church and state is not written in the Constitution .... It isn't.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

That didn't take long.

GOD isn't in the Constitution either. Unless you talk to Torchy. Lol

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App