Forum Discussion

This post is in response to the toon below (click to enlarge)
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (July 5, 2005 1:05 PM)
Posted by: Chris Delorey
I get sick with all the attacks on the pledge. The death penalty is also a troubling issue.

Re: Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (July 9, 2005 11:52 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
Is it possible not every one wants to pledge allegiance to the God you worship?
Re: Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (July 13, 2005 8:04 PM)
Posted by: Chris Delorey
>Is it possible not every one wants to pledge
>allegiance to the God you worship?

By the by, I am a Darwinistic, religion-less person can't stand anything more than the Hypocrisy of the Christian Faith but it is still our pledge that represents that which we were founded on. so I don't worship this "God" I don't like anything that puts a man on his knees.
Re: Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (July 14, 2005 3:46 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
Heeehee, I pledge all... one nation ... under Darwin.
:-P
Ya think that might be a bit contraversial.
The interestign bit is that "Under God" was put in by Eisenhower in 1954 I belive. For about 180 years this country seems to be ok with out. And I dare say the populace was more religious at the time.
I wonder why NOW its a contraversy.
Re: Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (November 16, 2005 9:21 AM)
Posted by: T Cleveland
>Is it possible not every one wants to pledge
>allegiance to the God you worship?

You shouldnet try to empose your secular bigoted beliefs on the 95% of the country that DOES believe in god. And the 85% that are christian.
The majority shoulld always rule in a democracy.
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 3, 2006 6:11 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>The majority shoulld always rule in a democracy.
Tell that to Electoral College creators.
(remember how Kerry got way more votes in 2000 then Bush)
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 5, 2006 10:56 PM)
Posted by: T J
//(remember how Kerry got way more votes in 2000 then Bush) //

No, no I don't. Did Kerry run in 2000? I'm pretty sure he didn't...(insert extra sarcasm here)
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 9, 2006 4:19 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>No, no I don't. Did Kerry run in 2000? I'm pretty sure he didn't.
Memory loss, eh?

I am sure that will be excellent Tom DeLay defense.
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 9, 2006 7:20 PM)
Posted by: T J
//I am sure that will be excellent Tom DeLay defense//

Funny I heard he was going to have the lawyer define verbs and predicates...you know, like Clinton.
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 11, 2006 4:43 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>Funny I heard he was going to have the lawyer define verbs and predicates...you know, like Clinton.

He should!!! Here is some advice:
Redifine bribery to mean: I was really helping people, really, really, trully. I felt when I was taking all those vacation and gifts the peopel who voted for me were vicariously on this vacation. Even if they were at work....
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 11, 2006 11:17 PM)
Posted by: T J
//I felt when I was taking all those vacation and gifts the peopel who voted for me were vicariously on this vacation. Even if they were at work.... //

Definition of grammar....nothing like the sentence above. Seriously Goot, did you get past 2nd grade?

And Kerry didn't run in 2000 (as you need a reminder), he ran in 2004. Al Gore was the loser...I mean losing candidate in 2000.

By the way I saw a funny bumper sticker about that. It said "Honk if you voted for Al Gore...It's the big button in the middle of your steering wheel"
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 12, 2006 3:55 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
TJ:
definition of an argument: No off-topic discussion and personal attacks. But hey they teach that in elementary school, and you did not get past kindgergarden debating mentality...."when can not argue, call the opponent a poopy head, a lib and cry loudly"

>And Kerry didn't run in 2000
True, my bad.
Gore got more votes.
The argument remains:
Posted by: Good Will
>The majority shoulld always rule in a democracy.
Tell that to Electoral College creators.
(remember how Gore got way more votes in 2000 then Bush)
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 13, 2006 1:20 PM)
Posted by: T J
//And Kerry didn't run in 2000
True, my bad.//

HA HA! I was right, you were wrong, neener neener neeeeeeener!!

Geez you make this message board fun, Goot! <huggies>
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 15, 2006 2:46 PM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
The majority of electors, in that case. The federal government was created by the states. Back then, people considered themselves New Yorkers, Georgians, etc., first, THEN considered themselves Americans. While the presidential election is not determined by popular vote, it is determined by the majority of electors, and the electors from each state (except two) are determined by the majority of votes within that state.

P.S. TJ, you can do better than that.
Cartoon on recent judicial decisions (January 15, 2006 6:05 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>The majority of electors, in that case.
Yeah, yeah, I know the history of an electoral college.
So its not majority rule, its conditional majority rule.

Population of Alaska according to 2000 census: 626,932
Many cities in US have a greater population then that.
Los Angeles population is at about 14 million.

so that pretty much refutes the T Clevelands argument that: "The majority shoulld always rule in a democracy."

Now we may argue the finer points of the wisdom of the Electoral college but one thing it does not provide for is "majority rule"

Post a reply

Subject:

Message:

Username: Password:
Forgot your username/password?
If you haven't already, register now.