NCAAbbs

My results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (82%) Information link
3. Barack Obama (74%) Information link
4. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (73%) Information link
5. Christopher Dodd (72%) Information link
6. Mike Gravel (70%) Information link
7. Joseph Biden (69%) Information link
8. Hillary Clinton (68%) Information link
9. John Edwards (66%) Information link
10. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (65%) Information link
11. Al Gore (not announced) (63%) Information link
12. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (63%) Information link
13. Ron Paul (61%) Information link
14. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (57%) Information link
15. Bill Richardson (52%) Information link
16. John McCain (40%) Information link
17. Rudolph Giuliani (39%) Information link
18. Elaine Brown (34%) Information link
19. Chuck Hagel (not running) (32%) Information link
20. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (31%) Information link
21. Mitt Romney (29%) Information link
22. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (26%) Information link
23. Sam Brownback (25%) Information link
24. Fred Thompson (21%) Information link
25. Tom Tancredo (20%) Information link
26. Duncan Hunter (19%) Information link
27. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (17%) Information link
28. Mike Huckabee (17%) Information link

You could basically take your list and flip it to make mine. My personal favorite is Duncan Hunter.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (57%) Information link
3. Tom Tancredo (57%) Information link
4. Duncan Hunter (55%) Information link
5. John McCain (55%) Information link
6. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (55%) Information link
7. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (54%) Information link
8. Chuck Hagel (not running) (51%) Information link
9. Sam Brownback (51%) Information link
10. Hillary Clinton (50%) Information link
11. Mike Huckabee (50%) Information link
12. Ron Paul (49%) Information link
13. Bill Richardson (49%) Information link
14. Mitt Romney (49%) Information link
15. Al Gore (not announced) (48%) Information link
16. Joseph Biden (48%) Information link
17. Fred Thompson (45%) Information link
18. Rudolph Giuliani (44%) Information link
19. John Edwards (44%) Information link
20. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (43%) Information link
21. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (43%) Information link
22. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (42%) Information link
23. Mike Gravel (41%) Information link
24. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (40%) Information link
25. Barack Obama (40%) Information link
26. Christopher Dodd (38%) Information link
27. Dennis Kucinich (33%) Information link
28. Elaine Brown (19%) Information link

I am kind of on the middle on all of them, but that mirrors my views.... Kind of hard to find a pro-choice, anti gun control, pro-war, but bring the troops home candidate.... Ron Paul probably hits the closest to what I think on most issues, but not all for sure. I like Fred Thompson because of Days of Thunder and Law & Order, is that wrong?

Days of Thunder, no. Law and Order, yes.

I really like both Ron Paul and Kucinich. But I just don't think either of them stand much of a chance.

My highest was Newt at 76%

It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the electoral college, thus the question. Given that it is in the constitution, why hasn't it been challenged in the Supreme Court? I seem to recall (vaguely) that constitutional amendments have been challenged in the past and thrown out by the Supreme Court. I am no history buff, I am mostly looking for the logic behind the electoral college and whether or not it has been challenged, not smart *** comments.

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the electoral college, thus the question. Given that it is in the constitution, why hasn't it been challenged in the Supreme Court? I seem to recall (vaguely) that constitutional amendments have been challenged in the past and thrown out by the Supreme Court. I am no history buff, I am mostly looking for the logic behind the electoral college and whether or not it has been challenged, not smart *** comments.

Consider the source.

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the electoral college, thus the question. Given that it is in the constitution, why hasn't it been challenged in the Supreme Court? I seem to recall (vaguely) that constitutional amendments have been challenged in the past and thrown out by the Supreme Court. I am no history buff, I am mostly looking for the logic behind the electoral college and whether or not it has been challenged, not smart *** comments.

You are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You cannot challenge the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment has NEVER been thrown out by the SCOTUS because the JOB of the SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution. Therefor, something IN the constitution cannot be ruled unconstitutional because it is part of the constitution.

If you're looking for the logic behind the electoral college, do a google search. That's what I did.

Suede27 Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the electoral college, thus the question. Given that it is in the constitution, why hasn't it been challenged in the Supreme Court? I seem to recall (vaguely) that constitutional amendments have been challenged in the past and thrown out by the Supreme Court. I am no history buff, I am mostly looking for the logic behind the electoral college and whether or not it has been challenged, not smart *** comments.

Consider the source.

Or the fact that I'm right numbnuts.

Common sense just doesn't seem to apply anymore.

I meant the fact that you always respond with such sarcasm, it makes you look like an ***. Therefore, he should consider the source and ignore your responses, since you obviously choose to belitte others that you think or know are wrong instead of politely correcting them. You can enlighten us without being such a jackass. I took it as him asking for information on a subject in a friendly manor.

1. pruitt11 (100%)
2. Joseph Biden (72%)
3. Al Gore (71%)
4. Hillary Clinton (70%)
5. Wesley Clark (68%)
6. Dennis Kucinich (67%)
7. Barack Obama (65%)
8. Alan Augustson (63%)
9. John Edwards (61%)
10. Michael Bloomberg (57%)
11. Christopher Dodd (55%)
12. Bill Richardson (50%)
13. Mike Gravel (41%)
14. Rudolph Giuliani (41%)
15. Mike Huckabee (37%)
16. Kent McManigal (34%)
17. Elaine Brown (32%)
18. John McCain (32%)
19. Tommy Thompson (30%)
20. Ron Paul (28%)
21. Newt Gingrich (28%)
22. Fred Thompson (27%)
23. Chuck Hagel (26%)
24. Mitt Romney (25%)
25. Duncan Hunter (24%)
26. Sam Brownback (24%)
27. Jim Gilmore (23%)
28. Tom Tancredo (18%)

Suede27 Wrote:I really like both Ron Paul and Kucinich. But I just don't think either of them stand much of a chance.

Do you like them based on their policies or just their outsider appeal? I ask because they represent separate radical ends of the spectrum.

Suede27 Wrote:I meant the fact that you always respond with such sarcasm, it makes you look like an ***. Therefore, he should consider the source and ignore your responses, since you obviously choose to belitte others that you think or know are wrong instead of politely correcting them. You can enlighten us without being such a jackass. I took it as him asking for information on a subject in a friendly manor.

For real, you would think I came on here with some Sax like comments about the constitution. I am not a moron, I simple do not know all the facts about the electoral college or the constitution. I am asking for information, not to be called an idiot. I swear that degree on my wall says "Cum Laude with University Honors", not "dumb***." What it also does not say is History or government major, it says Accounting.

However, since there has been 20 some odd amendments to the constitution, would that not imply that the government has seen fit to make changes to the constitution or provide further rights that had not been previously mentioned? You know the women's right to vote and ending slavery and all. So that would mean the constitution is not a Bible, it has flaws and needs to be changed, correct? Meaning that it had to be challenged, debated, or something to cause those things to change. I amended my question to take out the term "unconstitutional" and used the general term "challenged" instead, meaning (since I need to spell it out for you) has anyone fought the electoral college at any level to have the constitution changed or amended?

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:I meant the fact that you always respond with such sarcasm, it makes you look like an ***. Therefore, he should consider the source and ignore your responses, since you obviously choose to belitte others that you think or know are wrong instead of politely correcting them. You can enlighten us without being such a jackass. I took it as him asking for information on a subject in a friendly manor.

For real, you would think I came on here with some Sax like comments about the constitution. I am not a moron, I simple do not know all the facts about the electoral college or the constitution. I am asking for information, not to be called an idiot. I swear that degree on my wall says "Cum Laude with University Honors", not "dumb***." What it also does not say is History or government major, it says Accounting.

However, since there has been 20 some odd amendments to the constitution, would that not imply that the government has seen fit to make changes to the constitution or provide further rights that had not been previously mentioned? You know the women's right to vote and ending slavery and all. So that would mean the constitution is not a Bible, it has flaws and needs to be changed, correct? Meaning that it had to be challenged, debated, or something to cause those things to change. I amended my question to take out the term "unconstitutional" and used the general term "challenged" instead, meaning (since I need to spell it out for you) has anyone fought the electoral college at any level to have the constitution changed or amended?

The only way to change the electoral college is through an amendment. That is the only way ANYTHING in the constitution can be changed. You can't challenge anything explicitly written in the constitution by going to the SCOTUS.

I wasn't trying to belittle you. I just found it quite amusing that you were insisting on the unconstitutionality of something IN the constitution. I figured someone who is smart enough to pass the CPA exam had enough sense to grasp that concept.

And yes, there are people who currently want to change the electoral college system, but it would take an amendment and we all know how hard those are to get through.

Suede27 Wrote:I meant the fact that you always respond with such sarcasm, it makes you look like an ***. Therefore, he should consider the source and ignore your responses, since you obviously choose to belitte others that you think or know are wrong instead of politely correcting them. You can enlighten us without being such a jackass. I took it as him asking for information on a subject in a friendly manor.

Nothing in my response was meant to be sarcastic at all. Everything that I stated was a fact, and I added the emphasis just so that people wouldn't miss the crux of the post. If you took it to be belittling, then that's your problem, not mine. I don't see how me saying

dfarr Wrote:Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

is belittling at all.

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:I meant the fact that you always respond with such sarcasm, it makes you look like an ***. Therefore, he should consider the source and ignore your responses, since you obviously choose to belitte others that you think or know are wrong instead of politely correcting them. You can enlighten us without being such a jackass. I took it as him asking for information on a subject in a friendly manor.

For real, you would think I came on here with some Sax like comments about the constitution. I am not a moron, I simple do not know all the facts about the electoral college or the constitution. I am asking for information, not to be called an idiot. I swear that degree on my wall says "Cum Laude with University Honors", not "dumb***." What it also does not say is History or government major, it says Accounting.

However, since there has been 20 some odd amendments to the constitution, would that not imply that the government has seen fit to make changes to the constitution or provide further rights that had not been previously mentioned? You know the women's right to vote and ending slavery and all. So that would mean the constitution is not a Bible, it has flaws and needs to be changed, correct? Meaning that it had to be challenged, debated, or something to cause those things to change. I amended my question to take out the term "unconstitutional" and used the general term "challenged" instead, meaning (since I need to spell it out for you) has anyone fought the electoral college at any level to have the constitution changed or amended?

The only way to change the electoral college is through an amendment. That is the only way ANYTHING in the constitution can be changed. You can't challenge anything explicitly written in the constitution by going to the SCOTUS.

I wasn't trying to belittle you. I just found it quite amusing that you were insisting on the unconstitutionality of something IN the constitution. I figured someone who is smart enough to pass the CPA exam had enough sense to grasp that concept.

And yes, there are people who currently want to change the electoral college system, but it would take an amendment and we all know how hard those are to get through.

I grasp the concept and would agree with you, if I had known that the electoral college was in the constitution. Which if I had thought, I probably would have realized that it was, but I wasn't sure.

You tone was belittling, regardless of the facts that you presented. If you had taken my question a little less literal and more to the heart of what I meant (which I am sure that you were intelligent enough to understand), all this back and forth would not have been necessary. A simple, "it can't be deemed unconstitutional because it is in the constitution, but people are trying to fight it", would have covered the whole thing and been courteous at the same time.

So back to my question for the history buffs out there, are there any documented cases or attempts made to change the electoral college? (before you say it again, I did try google and I don't have time for 2,000,000 results, I was wondering if anyone who had an interest in these things knew.)

Here's me:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100 %)
2. Barack Obama (85 %)
3. Al Gore (not announced) (85 %)
4. Dennis Kucinich (84 %)
5. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (83 %)
6. Joseph Biden (79 %)
7. Hillary Clinton (78 %)
8. John Edwards (76 %)
9. Christopher Dodd (75 %)
10. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (73 %)
11. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (72 %)
12. Bill Richardson (71 %)
13. Mike Gravel (57 %)
14. Ron Paul (54 %)
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (43 %)
16. Elaine Brown (38 %)
17. Mike Huckabee (34 %)
18. John McCain (33 %)
19. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (31 %)
20. Rudolph Giuliani (31 %)
21. Mitt Romney (28 %)
22. Chuck Hagel (not running) (26 %)
23. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (19 %)
24. Sam Brownback (16 %)
25. Tom Tancredo (16 %)
26. Fred Thompson (16 %)
27. Duncan Hunter (9 %)
28. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (9 %)

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the electoral college, thus the question. Given that it is in the constitution, why hasn't it been challenged in the Supreme Court? I seem to recall (vaguely) that constitutional amendments have been challenged in the past and thrown out by the Supreme Court. I am no history buff, I am mostly looking for the logic behind the electoral college and whether or not it has been challenged, not smart *** comments.

I could explain the process to you myself, but I believe in autodidactism, so here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...al_College

and an example of a challenge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Po...te_Compact

Sure there have been "efforts" to change it. There are efforts to legalize heroin but they don't go anywhere. I don't think there have been any *real* attempts at changing the college, there was some interest in 2000, but it didn't really go anywhere.

Isn't there something going on in CA where they are trying to get the electoral votes split like VT? I could go along with something like that. There's no need for all of the votes to go to one candidate, especially if the vote was very close.

There are a couple of states that apportion votes based on congressional districts. You get an electoral vote for each seat in congress (House + Senate) that your state has. A couple of states already have a system that apportions votes based on if a candidate carries a congressional district. The winner statewide gets the two "at large" votes. There was discussion of pushing that nationwide, and some states are considering doing that on their own.

mixduptransistor Wrote:There are a couple of states that apportion votes based on congressional districts. You get an electoral vote for each seat in congress (House + Senate) that your state has. A couple of states already have a system that apportions votes based on if a candidate carries a congressional district. The winner statewide gets the two "at large" votes. There was discussion of pushing that nationwide, and some states are considering doing that on their own.

I think it's Maine and one other state who gives the 2 senatorial votes to the majority winner in the state, and then gives out the house votes based on which candidate won that district.

dfarr Wrote:

mixduptransistor Wrote:There are a couple of states that apportion votes based on congressional districts. You get an electoral vote for each seat in congress (House + Senate) that your state has. A couple of states already have a system that apportions votes based on if a candidate carries a congressional district. The winner statewide gets the two "at large" votes. There was discussion of pushing that nationwide, and some states are considering doing that on their own.

I think it's Maine and one other state who gives the 2 senatorial votes to the majority winner in the state, and then gives out the house votes based on which candidate won that district.

The other is in the midwest/central states. Kansas or Nebraska I think

1. BTR (100%)
2. Duncan Hunter (79%) Information link
3. Chuck Hagel (not running) (76%) Information link
4. Tom Tancredo (75%) Information link
5. Mitt Romney (74%) Information link
6. Sam Brownback (71%) Information link
7. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (64%) Information link
8. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (63%) Information link
9. John McCain (63%) Information link
10. Fred Thompson (61%) Information link
11. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (55%) Information link
12. Mike Huckabee (53%) Information link
13. Ron Paul (52%) Information link
14. Rudolph Giuliani (52%) Information link
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (49%) Information link
16. Al Gore (not announced) (34%) Information link
17. Hillary Clinton (31%) Information link
18. Joseph Biden (30%) Information link
19. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (28%) Information link
20. Christopher Dodd (28%) Information link
21. John Edwards (28%) Information link
22. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (28%) Information link
23. Bill Richardson (27%) Information link
24. Barack Obama (23%) Information link
25. Mike Gravel (18%) Information link
26. Dennis Kucinich (14%) Information link
27. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (12%) Information link
28. Elaine Brown (6%) Information link

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Ron Paul (86%) Information link
3. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (83%) Information link
4. Chuck Hagel (not running) (66%) Information link
5. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (57%) Information link
6. Mitt Romney (56%) Information link
7. Tom Tancredo (55%) Information link
8. Sam Brownback (54%) Information link
9. Duncan Hunter (49%) Information link
10. Fred Thompson (48%) Information link
11. Mike Gravel (48%) Information link
12. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (47%) Information link
13. Bill Richardson (45%) Information link
14. John McCain (45%) Information link
15. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (41%) Information link
16. Mike Huckabee (41%) Information link
17. Barack Obama (40%) Information link
18. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (40%) Information link
19. Al Gore (not announced) (39%) Information link
20. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (36%) Information link
21. Dennis Kucinich (36%) Information link
22. Hillary Clinton (34%) Information link
23. Joseph Biden (33%) Information link
24. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (33%) Information link
25. Rudolph Giuliani (32%) Information link
26. Christopher Dodd (32%) Information link
27. John Edwards (30%) Information link
28. Elaine Brown (14%) Information link

pruitt11 Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:I really like both Ron Paul and Kucinich. But I just don't think either of them stand much of a chance.

Do you like them based on their policies or just their outsider appeal? I ask because they represent separate radical ends of the spectrum.

Well, Kucinich based on his policies. I'll probably vote for him. I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of things, such as privatizing so many things. I mean I agree with some of them, but some of it is a bit rediculous. I am also pro-choice, so that's a conflict as well. He seems a bit crazy sometimes. But he is so opposed to the War in Iraq and seems very sincere, and my biggest concern is ending the war in Iraq. He says the same thing I have always said, that we should listen to what our enemies are telling us. And just to note, they are not on radical ends of the spectrum on a lot of things that I care about.

And Ron Paul opposes the Patriot Act....

And he believes in EVOLUTION!

I like Paul's idea about getting rid of lots of entitlement programs, but not the IRS since my dad is a CPA.

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

Habeas Corpus is the only legal right of American citizens that is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. How is the Bush administration's suspension of habeas not unconstitutional?

UAB Band Dad Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:

BlazerCPA1 Wrote:It doesn't really matter who I like, unless I am voting republican, my vote does not count here in the state of Alabama.... Question to all the history buffs out there, why hasn't the electoral college ever been challenged as unconstitutional? Every vote cast for the party that loses the state is basically thrown out, how is that not disenfranchisement? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, but that did not count due to the electoral college... that screams unconstitutional to me...

Well, the electoral college actually being in the constitution would have something to do with it not being unconstitutional. If it's in the constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

Habeas Corpus is the only legal right of American citizens that is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. How is the Bush administration's suspension of habeas not unconstitutional?

What cases are you talking about in particular?

LightEmUp70 Wrote:Isn't there something going on in CA where they are trying to get the electoral votes split like VT? I could go along with something like that. There's no need for all of the votes to go to one candidate, especially if the vote was very close.

I'd come closer to agreeing with that if the effort was nationwide. Instead, the Republicans are trying to force the Democrats to do one of two things - either lose electoral votes in those Ca. districts that vote Republican or spend a lot of time, money and effort preventing such a vote grab.

If it was a true policy initiative they'd be advocating such a policy nationwide, and the Democrats would also pick up electoral votes in Red state districts. Like every politician, they want policies changed if the change is in their own favor, and oppose it if it presents a disadvantage.

dfarr Wrote:What cases are you talking about in particular?

The most obvious case would be alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Padilla, an American citizen, was jailed without any charges being filed, denied counsel, and subjected to at best mistreatment and harsh interrogation and at worst outright torture.

I have no problem with prosecuting him if he's a terrorist. Indict him, take him to trial, convict him, and punish him. Throwing someone in jail for years without bothering to file charges is the kind of thing I grew up hearing about the Soviets doing. Americans were the good guys and stood up against such things as a shining example to the world.

We have become what we once fought against.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/19...s-cloture/

nt. double post

UAB Band Dad Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:What cases are you talking about in particular?

The most obvious case would be alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Padilla, an American citizen, was jailed without any charges being filed, denied counsel, and subjected to at best mistreatment and harsh interrogation and at worst outright torture.

I have no problem with prosecuting him if he's a terrorist. Indict him, take him to trial, convict him, and punish him. Throwing someone in jail for years without bothering to file charges is the kind of thing I grew up hearing about the Soviets doing. Americans were the good guys and stood up against such things as a shining example to the world.

We have become what we once fought against.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/19...s-cloture/

In this case I'd agree with you.

Do away with the IRS. Your dad the CPA can get a job flipping burgers :) Bring on the fair tax!

UAB Band Dad Wrote:http://rightsfield.com/2007/08/16/about-.../#more-917

Go through the effort of actually reading the book, not what someone who is opposed to it tells you. Read the book for yourself. The article was quite biased... obviously. Also, there is a built in tax credit for food and medicine so don't fall for that argument.

What is removed is all of the special interest groups. It is fair because every (yes everyone) pays taxes on what they consume. If you don't spend much money, you don't spend much in taxes.

Again, read the book. It took me about 90 minutes to read the entire book. Well written and some great history of the irs.

I just redid this thing. I did it because my wife told me that I did not HAVE to answer all of the questions and could just leave them blank. Like some of the things that I was torn on like immigration, free trade, etc... I chose neither. And then the questions about age, and marital status, yadda yadda yadda, that don't give you the neither or none of the above option, I just left blank. This seems a little more like it.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (100%) Information link
3. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (89%) Information link
4. Barack Obama (82%) Information link
5. Mike Gravel (82%) Information link
6. Joseph Biden (81%) Information link
7. Hillary Clinton (78%) Information link
8. Al Gore (not announced) (76%) Information link
9. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (76%) Information link
10. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (73%) Information link
11. Christopher Dodd (72%) Information link
12. John Edwards (67%) Information link
13. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (63%) Information link
14. Ron Paul (56%) Information link
15. Bill Richardson (47%) Information link
16. Elaine Brown (42%) Information link
17. Rudolph Giuliani (35%) Information link
18. John McCain (22%) Information link
19. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (18%) Information link
20. Mitt Romney (15%) Information link
21. Chuck Hagel (not running) (14%) Information link
22. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (14%) Information link
23. Mike Huckabee (6%) Information link
24. Fred Thompson (2%) Information link
25. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (2%) Information link
26. Duncan Hunter (1%) Information link
27. Sam Brownback (0%) Information link
28. Tom Tancredo (0%) Information link
.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:

LightEmUp70 Wrote:Isn't there something going on in CA where they are trying to get the electoral votes split like VT? I could go along with something like that. There's no need for all of the votes to go to one candidate, especially if the vote was very close.

I'd come closer to agreeing with that if the effort was nationwide. Instead, the Republicans are trying to force the Democrats to do one of two things - either lose electoral votes in those Ca. districts that vote Republican or spend a lot of time, money and effort preventing such a vote grab.

If it was a true policy initiative they'd be advocating such a policy nationwide, and the Democrats would also pick up electoral votes in Red state districts. Like every politician, they want policies changed if the change is in their own favor, and oppose it if it presents a disadvantage.

I believe that it should be nationwide. As it is if a state is split almost down the middle, half of the votes basically don't count which means their voices weren't heard.

Quote:Habeas Corpus is the only legal right of American citizens that is explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. How is the Bush administration's suspension of habeas not unconstitutional?

Didn't Lincoln suspend habeas corpus right before the civil war broke out? It seems the US has a history of suspending habeas corpus when times get rough.

Lincoln suspended Habeas during the civil war. He imprisoned without recourse both suspected Southern agents and war opponents. If you look at the histories, this was later considered one of the most controversial actions he ever took and a black mark against his administration.

So far as I know, that was the only other time Habeas has been suspended. For instance, we managed the entire Cold War from the time Churchill gave his "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946 to the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 without doing so. The Soviets had hundreds (thousands?) of nuclear missiles pointed at us during that period, we endured the worst of McCartyism then, and we managed to defend ourselves without tearing up the Constitution.

There is simply no reason to repudiate everything we stand for because we face Islamic terrorists. The Congress has passed and will continue to pass legislation that allows for our defense and intelligence gathering agencies to have the needed powers to defend us. They're not idiots. OTOH, the Bush administration, particularly Cheney, wants to be able to do anything to anyone at will with no oversight or legal recourse, and that is just this side of outright tyranny.

I never thought I would see the day that this country would kidnap people off the street, and then without any form of trial ship them to "black" prisons outside this country to be tortured. I certainly never thought that if such things happened the American people would just shrug their shoulders and ignore it.

DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW!!! Is that so much to ask?

We don't claim Joseph, he's a McCartHy.

Lots of time surfing the interwebs this morning. Found this to be true:

Definition of Douchebaggery:

American history is riddled with dichotomies where what we say we believe is refuted by what we do. In 1776, we stated "All men are created equal" and then tolerated slavery until it was ended by a Civil War almost a century later. We, as a nation, tolerated the follow-on terrorism of groups like the KKK against black Americans, Jews and immigrants, after the Civil War and again in the 20th century complete with lynchings and other murders and discriminations until the last quarter of the century. During WWII, the southern military posts opened their on base officers clubs to German officer POWs while barring uniformed black US Army officers from admittance. During the 1920s and 30s, the Democrats AND Republicans ignored the open inequities and repeated violence in our nation. The only political party that openly opposed these injustices at the time was the American Communist Party which is why several leading blacks joined the party (Paul Robeson was among the most famous), and they were attacked for being "Communists" ignoring the "only friendly port in a storm" logic on which it was based. In 1948, the Democratic Party adopted its first civil rights platform (setting off the "Dixiecrat Revolt" led by Strom Thurmond) sponsored by Hubert Humphrey and the southern black support for the party has been a "given" ever since.
The present immigration debate is framed in such racial terms today since the Islamic terrorists could strike through Canada as easily as Mexico, but the Mexican border is the only one getting walls and fences. Keep in mind that "illegal immigration has only been since 1880. Before that, anyone could come to America in any condition-even in chains. Since 1880 the immigration laws have been used to protect the "whiteness" and "Protestant Christianity" of the dominant American population group. Until LBJ liberalized the immigration quota system in the late 1960s, it was heavily weighted in favor of white, northern European, protestant populations. All others "stood" in a very long line for years waiting for admission in very small numbers.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Ron Paul (63%) Information link
3. Al Gore (not announced) (62%) Information link
4. Barack Obama (59%) Information link
5. Joseph Biden (59%) Information link
6. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (58%) Information link
7. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (54%) Information link
8. Bill Richardson (53%) Information link
9. Dennis Kucinich (53%) Information link
10. Hillary Clinton (52%) Information link
11. Christopher Dodd (50%) Information link
12. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (50%) Information link
13. Chuck Hagel (not running) (50%) Information link
14. John Edwards (50%) Information link
15. John McCain (48%) Information link
16. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (48%) Information link
17. Mike Gravel (46%) Information link
18. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (45%) Information link
19. Tom Tancredo (41%) Information link
20. Mike Huckabee (40%) Information link
21. Duncan Hunter (39%) Information link
22. Mitt Romney (39%) Information link
23. Fred Thompson (39%) Information link
24. Rudolph Giuliani (38%) Information link
25. Sam Brownback (36%) Information link
26. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (35%) Information link
27. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (33%) Information link
28. Elaine Brown (11%) Information link

Mine was mostly right. Especially on Ron Paul being high on the list and most other republicans especially giuliani being low on the list.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (84%) Information link
3. Al Gore (not announced) (79%) Information link
4. Christopher Dodd (77%) Information link
5. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (73%) Information link
6. John Edwards (72%) Information link
7. Dennis Kucinich (69%) Information link
8. Hillary Clinton (66%) Information link
9. Joseph Biden (66%) Information link
10. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (65%) Information link
11. Mike Gravel (62%) Information link
12. Bill Richardson (59%) Information link
13. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (57%) Information link
14. Ron Paul (54%) Information link
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (49%) Information link
16. Rudolph Giuliani (38%) Information link
17. John McCain (34%) Information link
18. Mitt Romney (31%) Information link
19. Mike Huckabee (30%) Information link
20. Elaine Brown (30%) Information link
21. Chuck Hagel (not running) (29%) Information link
22. Tom Tancredo (26%) Information link
23. Newt Gingrich (not announced) (24%) Information link
24. Fred Thompson (23%) Information link
25. Sam Brownback (21%) Information link
26. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (18%) Information link
27. Duncan Hunter (17%) Information link
28. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (14%) Information link

No surprises here!