Umbobo

Registered bored user

cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod It doesn't give me an unfair advantage, as I'm not running for president.  As you've apparently forgotten, and as I have mentioned before, I have voted both Republican and Democrat in the past.  You disagree with me, and that's fine.  I believe the EC balances cultural, political and other ideas as spread across the whole of the country.  And you can take a screenshot of this post if you want and save it for the day when the EC does benefit a winning candidate whom I did not vote for, and I'll be saying the same thing.

Also, are the populations you listed just for the cities themselves, or for the entire regions that surround them and are influenced heavily by the popular opinions of the city?

And finally, if you want to start pointing out "idiotic" statments, look at your last sentence.  Seriously, are you going to tell me that neither you nor Liberals have an "Agenda"?  You simply don't like the EC because it doesn't let the Liberal AGENDA dominate all aspects of American society.  We still use the EC because it does in fact provide balance.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
barry9a I'll answer that by asking this...  why shouldn't the president represent the stronger political view that transcends the entirety of the nation rather than a minority viewpoint?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
holygod Never worked to  Democrat's advantage?  Well, hell, holygod, no wonder they're all bitching about it.  My argument below in response to muert applies here, so I'll just refer you to that for my opinion on the matter.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
BuckeyeJoe Thanks!  Sorry about that.  I've had things come up that drew me away and distracted me.  Not sure how much I'll be back, or if I'll just peek my head in from time to time.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
muert Well, we just disagree on that then.  If not for the EC, basically no one's votes would ultimately count unless they are in the highest population density areas.  Civilizations tend to do that--have high concentrations of people in smaller areas.  The influence of ideas in those areas would overwhelm the whole of the nation.  As it is, a balance is established--not by simple vote, but a balance of opposing viewpoints.  I don't think it can be argued that there is in fact balance in place.  We've gone back and forth from liberal to conservative leadership for a long time.  Neither can become supreme with the EC.  But without it, the high population areas with more liberal ideas (in the instance of our nation) would of course multiply that much more quickly and opposing ideas would be squelched.  But of course, this is what most liberals seem to want, so I can see why they complain about the electoral college.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
It's the same every time... no matter who wins, the other side cries about how the EC is unfair.  We can all disagree on whether it is unfair or not, but the fact is that it is what's in place, and belly-aching about it after your candidate lost makes you look whiny.  If anyone is really that upset about it, go do something about it.  Has anyone tried to change the EC in recent times?  I would guess so, but the movement to do so was so small that it could get no traction.  Probably because it is ultimately incredibly fair, at least from a more universal perspective.  Individually, no, it doesn't seem reasonable that the vote of someone in Wyoming has more pull than someone in CA.  But cultural tendencies in regions that are very populated should not decide elections for the whole of the country.  That would be unreasonable and unfair.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Okay, this is kinda stupid...  Simulated Martian soil is made of volcanic rocks from Earth and Pig Poop...  and the put the worms in it--on Earth.  So we take things that exist only on Earth, keep it in Earth's environment, and this simulates Mars?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
punko I wouldn't count on it.  As long as it's making money, they'll keep putting out SW movies.  I would expect the movie franchise to outlive us all.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
layla_wilson I'm pretty sure that even that would not have made it seem legit.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
squrlz4ever Couldn't agree more.  When I was young, of course we did stupid things too, but nothing compared to this, and most of the moronic things we see youth doing these days.  It's a wonder more of them aren't getting killed.

Wow, I've become one of those old guys complaining about these "damn kids"...  when did that happen?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
People are getting lamer and lamer.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
normalfreak2 You're right--it's not fair to lump all liberals together.  We all have a tendency to do it though, talking about the typical "liberal" or "conservative" agendas.  But there's many different branches within each--so, my apologies...  What I really mean is the more extreme liberalism that does want all guns banned.

Just curious though, in this regard, what is the "common sense" approach to gun control?  And would it really, honestly--in your opinion--stop things like the LV shooting from happening?


cjeffblanchr wrote:
normalfreak2 It doesn't make sense, and I agree that it's not right..  Much of the entire issue makes little sense, from both sides.  But if the liberals had their way, no one would have the right to any guns whatsoever, and this will not solve the problem.  I realize this kook's guns were legally purchased, but, I think it still stands that if he wanted to kill people, he would have found a way, regardless.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 I'm just saying that I think he's not answering because you've yet to admit that perhaps you've let emotion get in the way and read things into his comments that weren't really there.  It doesn't matter... we all do such things from time to time.  I probably wouldn't answer any direct questions from someone either when they can't admit even the slightest mistake.  I mean, I don't think I've ever made any comment specifically condemning pedophilia, so do you think that means that I don't?  I'll bet if you can admit a small mistake, monk will directly answer your question.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
5cats Yep, and I think it's pitiful that they use such a tragedy to promote their long standing agenda of getting rid of guns.  It's disrespectful to the victims.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 The anticipation of this argument is killing me.  Which one of you will give in first?  I think it should be you, as you really did seem to attribute something wrongly.  All you gotta do is admit that and it looks like he'll give you an answer.  Please don't make me wait any longer.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 You're reading way too much into that, man.  Just because someone doesn't speak the words you want them to speak, exactly as you want them to be spoken, does absolutely NOT mean that they don't condemn something.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 Why don't you link to it?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 It is if it's intentional.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 So saying "wow" somehow expresses sexual excitement?  That's seriously what you're saying here...  all I can say to that comment is  "Wow".  Oh no!  Did I just sexually assault you over the internet by saying "wow"?  Get a grip dude.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
lockner01 It seriously sounds like you're the one with the pedo-issue there, bud.  You sexualized a non-sexual comment.  That one backfired on you, bro.  Get some help.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
5cats Yeah, I think I heard there's like 40 or so murders in the US every day.  Where are all the public tears for all of them?

Not saying it's not a tragedy--of course it is.  But this is just a plea to get guns banned--the same old tactic.  I think it's sad that anyone would use such a horrible event as the LV shooting to try to promote their agenda.  If people are sick enough that they want to murder a mass of people, they are going to find a way, with or without guns.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
Fojos By killing them?
cjeffblanchr wrote:
I love watching Fool Us.  Shin Lim is so incredible--his performances are art as much as they are magic.
cjeffblanchr wrote:
scheckydamon This might be an idea for a reality tv show that I could actually watch.