Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 23:05:58 11/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 11:39:38, Ed Schröder wrote: >On November 29, 2000 at 11:05:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 29, 2000 at 02:35:28, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>>On November 29, 2000 at 00:26:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 28, 2000 at 21:05:24, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 28, 2000 at 14:45:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>. >>>>>> >>>>>>This shows you don't understand the US Constitution very well. One purpose >>>>>>of the federal government is to resolve disputes _between_ states. Another >>>>>>is to regulate trade between the states. Etc. So states _do_ count in the >>>>>>overall decision making process, as they should. The federal government is >>>>>>a part of the individual state governmental process... >>>>> >>>>>Dr. Hyatt, >>>>> >>>>>I guess guys that go by the name of PinkFloydHomer@yahoo.com don't have much >>>>>information about anything. Keep on posting your highly rational posts, Sir. >>>>> >>>>>I agree that this is a "federal election" for the office of President of the >>>>>United States of America. Individual state Supreme Courts and Legislatures are >>>>>subordinate to the Federal agencies. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Are you a Republican or just an honest fellow? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Tim Frohlick >>>> >>>> >>>>I am actually neither Republican nor Democrat. I am more conservative than >>>>liberal, believe in less government, not more, believe in less entitlement >>>>not more, less socialism, not more, etc. But I generally vote for the person >>>>I think is best qualified, with the best ideas. Sometimes a Democrat, sometimes >>>>a republican. More often a Republican, probably, but not by a big margin. >>> >>>Right. Just tell me the last time you saw a Democrat for less government, less >>>socialism, and less entitlement. Let's at least be real, and not temporize. >>>There's a lot to be said for voting party and principle, rather than for the >>>individual. >> >> >>It happens. There are liberal and conservative democrats. Liberal and >>conservative republicans. In the center of that range, there are republicans >>that are more liberal than some democrats. >> >>I try to differentiate between who stands for what and make an informed >>choice. If I was in a rush, I might tend to simply check "republican" and >>turn in my ballot. But I actually never do this, as there are lots of good >>democrats running for office. And they get my vote... >> >>Not all democrats believe in big government. Not all republicans believe in >>small government. Which is our problem to determine. > >I thought Djordje has said, stop this. > >Ed I find it strange that Bob is okay with this kind of thread. I had some fun with the first one a couple of weeks ago. But really this has nothing to do with computer chess. As Bob Being a moderator I found this to be very surprising. Quite frankly all this U.S election stuff is now boring, we seem to only get the news stories in Australia regarding this matter thats makes the US political system look like a joke. And even on my Pay Television, CNN, BBC, CNBC Asian, Bloomberg, Fox News, all seem to poke fun at everything now, cause they only seem to choose to show us stuff that defies logic and is funny. Like this convoy that is suppose to transfer the votes to some court house, and the Judge they showed us sounds like old Boss Hogg from that old TV Show "The dukes of Hazard" Maybe placing the old 1 in a box like we do in Australia maybe the way to go, with 21 million people where it is compusury to vote, we can get the results within the early evening. Even third world countries seem to be able to hold an election and count result better, excluding all the vote rigging that usually goes on in those countries, at least they can count them (usually all by hand) just like we do in Aus.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.