Exhuming McCarthy: Take Two

[Kellen_p8nt]

Rooster. I exist in the real world. And every time i look around im not seing a shred of what your saying,

I said it once ill say it agian

Once you think you are right you have lost.
Once everyone thinks they are right, all is lost.


Liberals are not wrong. nor are Conservatives wrong. Nor is either truely correct.

i dont see people suddenly realizing all liberals are wrong. WHat i see is people falling for "lies and Propaganda". ON BOTH SIDES. the Ignorant, literaly meaning those ho do not know, are shifting to one side or the other like fish going for the bait It disgusts me. And it really doesnt mtter to me which side lies more or more severly. What matters is they lie. If you want to argue about it, someone needs to be the bigger man and not lie.

What I also see is people locking themselves in and moving further right in a sense because they see the opposition as more evil/ignorant/hramfull/etc. Yea Rooster im sorry your guilty of this. the claim you made just shows it.

I respect anyone thats part of a major third party or philosophical movement. Why? well to exist in the minority, such as libertarian green etc., or to take a philosophical stance for something that some people hate, takes courage and logic. To drift to one fo these positions, either right or left, one must think about his beliefs his views his opinions and weather they are right or wrong and generally they must read. This is alot more than i care to say for a majority of people who vote democrat/or republican. Its obvious to us all that people go into the booth and vote all democrat or all republican out of some ingraved thing from the media in there head. thats blind faith to met. Im a democrat, republicans are evil, i better vote democrt then. Ima republican democrats are evil, i better vote republican then.

those kinds of stances are ignorant and completely unbased.


sorry for ranting

[Hasty8]

If you don't hate france or Germany, you're a liberal.


^^This is one of my biggest pet peeves. So many people hate France and Germany, just becasue they didn't agree with our overly-aggresive war. It reminds me of all the stupid people in my class getting pissed off at the curve breakers because they did the right thing and studied.

I have no problem being called a liberal. It's when people jump to conclusions about what I think that gets to me. My teacher showed the Berg clip to a class with partial permission, and automatically he was labeled a liberal, even though he's a republican. In another thread somebody said that I liked the band Anti-Flag, even though i despise them, just because I'm a democrat. Since you think argueing with statistics is annoying, George W. must be incredibly annoying to you?

Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the <font size="+3">realpolitik.</font>
Look who bought the <font size="+1">myth</font>, by <font size="+2">jingo</font>, buy America.

I hate Germany and France (the governments, not the people) for different reasons.

Frances has hated America ever since we forced them to stand down over the Israeli-Egyptian war over the Suez canal. France is just pissed the they are not the central world power any more.

Also, it does not surprise me that France and Russia, the two nations with the most resistance to our going to war are now being implicated by documents found in Iraq that shows them as actually profiteering from the IRaqi Oil-For Food program.

As for Germany, I'm a Jew. My grandfather fought in WWII and spent the last few months of it in a camp. Some hatreds just die hard I guess.

[Hasty8]

Actually in the popular election for president you are voting for a slate of electors. Each party represented has a slate. The winner of that state sends his slate of electors to the electoral college. So only die hards are put on the slate. Could someone change their vote? Yes, but not bloody likely.

So yes, the popular election does count. It allows you the people of your state to choose your representatives to the electoral college.

So who is the tool now?

Where is it said that the winner of the state chooses the slate of electors? No where but in your mind apparently.

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.


The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; 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; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Now, where does it say that the "winner of the state" chooses the slate of electors? No where. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the "winner" chooses the slate seeing as how the popular votes are counted and then the electors vote in secrecy and transmit their votes to the Senate where they are finally read and tabulated.

If you need that, take it but again, if you could bother to show us the proof for your words which I bolded that would be great instad of just making wildly incorrect and baseless claims. I think what you are confused about it the process by which the electors are themselves elected. Allow me to explain.

The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.

On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president. Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].

On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president. In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

I'm not going to call you a tool. It's pointless to insult you. Why you feel the need to insult me is unknown to me. Perhaps it makes youfeel better or perhaps it makes you feel superior to me. Whatever the reason you should at least make sure that what you write is factual in order to prevent yourself from looking foolish.

[Hasty8]

I've started to notice that you get labled as a liberal no matter how much or how little you oppose republicans.

If you oppose the war in Iraq, you're a liberal.
If you oppose the Bush tax cuts, you're a liberal.
If you oppose Bush himself, you're a liberal.
If you've shown the Nick Berg to anybody other than yourself, you're a liberal.
If you argue about the unemployment rate, you're a liberal.
If you've seen Bowling for Columbine and you liked it, you're a liberal.
If you want to see Farenheit 911, you're a liberal.
If a teacher makes the class read an anti-war poem, they're a liberal.
If you like Anti-Flag, you're a liberal.
If you think big corporations are gaining too much power, you're a liberal.
If you think Clinton was one of the best presidents in a long time, you're a liberal.
If you think the votes in Florida should have been re-recounted, you're a liberal.
If you think we jumped the gun when we went to war with Iraq, you're a liberal.
If you think that religion shouldn't be in schools, you're a liberal.


Nowdays, even if you are a right-wing republican and disagree with just one little thing about the Bush administration or the war with Iraq, you are automatically labeled as a liberal and your opinions dismissed as crazy liberal talk. Pretty soon it will mount to McCarthy like proportions, and I fear the day it does.


But don't listen to me, I'm just a crazy little liberal with nothing more coming out of my mouth that incomprehensible ranting.

I never actually replied to the originating post so here goes.

I find to things wrong with the analogy here.

First, we are not in a time like McCarthyism, where simply being called a commie could lose you your job or even your life.

Second, it goes both ways now. It's just that here the most vocal are the conservatives but go to the democraticunderground (shudder) and simply being a moderate they label you a troll.

In all, I chalk it up to an unwillingness to actually listen to others. Listening is such a lost art. Instead of listening people typicall jsut wait for their chance to speak.

I take in everything the Fol, 1DE, Army and even Rooster say to me. I try as best I can to filter out the hatred being directed from people who don't evenknow me. They simply seem to demonstrate a knee-jerk reaction to something that is different from them.

AAAAHHHHH! INDIVIDUALISM!!!! KILL IT!!!!

This is demonstrated in no more a clearer fashion then by 1DE calling everyone he dislikes a tool and their name.

Way to uphold the America ideal 1DE.

We've collectively forgotten how to listen. I don't think things will get better until we start to listen again.

[Rooster]

Listening to noise accomplishes nothing.

There is no higher ideal. Their is no philosophical stance. There is no higher plane of understanding. There is the here and now. There is the right and the wrong. To think otherwise is child-like and niave. There is no grey.

I love third parties. There is no better way to waste your vote. That is the reality of the situation. A third party president will not win. To vote for one, as a protest or otherwise, is a wasted vote. You threw your backing to someone incapable of winning.

I'm sorry, but no liberal retains the ability to think critically. This is easily proven. If they did, they could no longer justify their views in their own mind, and they would change them.

If its liberal, its wrong.

[-Carnifex-]

And I'm not sure why you would want to exhume a great American like Senator McCarthy.

Holy hell. You're crazy.

Rooster

[-Carnifex-]

[QUOTE=Rooster]
There is no grey.[QUOTE]

You're mistaken.

[PissedGodzilla]

I wonder if Rooster lives in an abandoned shack in the middle of the woods somewhere, because with some of the inane drivel that he spits out, there is no possible way he lives in a populated area....

Senator McCarthy was an evil man who desecrated the position he was appointed to. He is no great American.


McCarthyism

[Kellen_p8nt]

last i checked I am intitled to vote for whoever I please. Nothing is a waste of a vote. By your same arguement if you vote bush but kerry wins then you wasted your vote. If you vote kerry and bush wins you wasted your vote.

If any canidate gets 5%, last i checked, their party gets matched funds on the next presidential election. IM all over that. Because rooster youhave just pointed out what i see as a tragic flaw of amrican politics, the two party system. Ill help a third party i believe in get that 5% and start to change the whole system.


I can think critically ad logically an justify everything i say and believe. You cant prove anythign I have said or believe wrong. Why? Because you dont know what I believe. You are making generalizations. And generalizations are prone to being false when applied to a large group such as "liberals".

the tragic flaw in your incessent(sp?) ranting is that everyone here in this great wonerfull county is intitled to believe whatever he wants. He can think his own way he can then go take to opinions and go vote in the way that he feels apropriate. Its individualistic. Are there groups or drones or like minded people amongst the liberals. Of course! but the same can be said of conservatives.

so to recap.
1. IM not wasting my vote
2. You sound childish
3. We are individuals and generalizations are flawed ebcause o this



i love my bannana

[Hasty8]

Listening to noise accomplishes nothing.

There is no higher ideal. Their is no philosophical stance. There is no higher plane of understanding. There is the here and now. There is the right and the wrong. To think otherwise is child-like and niave. There is no grey.

I love third parties. There is no better way to waste your vote. That is the reality of the situation. A third party president will not win. To vote for one, as a protest or otherwise, is a wasted vote. You threw your backing to someone incapable of winning.

I'm sorry, but no liberal retains the ability to think critically. This is easily proven. If they did, they could no longer justify their views in their own mind, and they would change them.

If its liberal, its wrong.

You very well fit the image that most people have of a "hick" or "country bumpkin" Rooster.

So far, I have gone to great lengths to show verifiable and substantiated facts to butress my claims, views and opinions.

You dismiss it as noise.

You openly insult any liberal simply for their being liberal and make wild claims that you could not possibly prove. Please show me how by simply being "liberal" that one losses the ability to think critically.

Your posts seem to more and more reflect an attitude of "Think like me or you are wrong". As a matter of fact, you openly say it.

I ust want to point out to you how very much that simple statement flies in the facts of everything this country stands for. We fought a war against England because of that belief. We fought a war against Nazism and Facism in Europe and a war against feudalism in the Pacific because they believed that way too. Your very precious Reagan fought a cold war against Russia who most certainly felt that way and your newest conservo-icon is now in a war against yet another embodiment of this total and unequovical denial of the basic right to free speech.

"If you disagree then you are wrong".

How does it make you feel to know that you are the very embodiment, from the posts I have seen of you here, that this country has fought so hard against time and again.

As for McCarthy being a great senator, it surprises me little that you would find him as a great man. I guess the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is a wasted though on you. I guess you seem to feel that McCarthy had the right to, with little to no evidence, go on national tv and read of alist of names of suspected communists knowing full well what the ramifications of his actions would be.

You are a sad and sorry little man Rooster. It's unfortunate that your particular brand of ignorance is not curable.

[Hasty8]

Listening to noise accomplishes nothing.

There is no higher ideal. Their is no philosophical stance. There is no higher plane of understanding. There is the here and now. There is the right and the wrong. To think otherwise is child-like and niave. There is no grey.

I love third parties. There is no better way to waste your vote. That is the reality of the situation. A third party president will not win. To vote for one, as a protest or otherwise, is a wasted vote. You threw your backing to someone incapable of winning.

I'm sorry, but no liberal retains the ability to think critically. This is easily proven. If they did, they could no longer justify their views in their own mind, and they would change them.

If its liberal, its wrong.

Guys, it's not really serving a purpose arguing with Rooster or any of the other "righties" here.

Never argue with an idiot as they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

None of the "righties" in any of the political threads have yet managed to adrees any one of the numerous facts posted with actual rebuting facts. Instead they aregue using hypotheical straw men, slippery slopes and personal attacks or, as in the case of 1DE simple ignore you rather than deal with thoughts and ideas that might actually inspire free thinking.

As my debate coach would always remind me "When you run out of facts, run on sensationalism".

The "right" ran out of facts sometime in the early 80's.

That being said so did the "left" or democrats.

Essentially, America politics is like this"
Republicans: "We are a party with really bad ideas!"
Democrats: "And we are going to make them even worse!"