It’s the Macduff Gambit!
Because he enjoys watching you spin up. Honestly, Dio, you can’t possibly believe that he’s worth the effort.
Cool, I made it to the pit. Good thing monkeys don’t have good aim.
I love the irony of those two sentences in succession, rather like saying “Look idiots, you sure nake it hard to educate your dumb asses. I don’t know whether I’m a male (and I have a penis and testicles and Y chromosomes).”
Ya, ya, we get it - you can’t be absolutely sure that you’re not in a “matrix” and we’re all just brains in jars connected by wires.
Go and have yourself some more sodey pops, and have a nap.
A point to make? RR is clearly on this board to troll in general and in this thread in particular. And the mods continue to have their thumbs so far up their asses it’s tickling their brain.
-Joe
Y’know, you could have just said that in post #124, 'jeek (may I call you 'jeek? Don’t answer that; it turns out that I don’t care :p). Seeing that fast response from Monkey with a Gun made me think there was some history between the two of you, and as an observer, I wasn’t clear on who you were talking about.
standing ovation
It’s been too long since we’ve had a reference to Philip Larkin in the Pit.
Once, for thirty minutes…
If there is, I’m not aware of it. The idea of a monkey with a gun reminds me of http://www.cracked.com/blog/so-you-need-to-disarm-a-chimpanzee/.
(Discworld fans need not correct me)
I guess I thought that the person to whom I was referring was clear enough. Apparently not…though maybe it helped flush out those with a guilty conscience?
-Joe
We need to tell SCOTUS to find new jobs–the SDMB can just interpret the constitution from now on. Sampiro, since you have NBC all figured out, why don’t you tell us exactly what a “law respecting the establishment of religion” is. And then please inform us exactly when the right to bear arms is infringed. And let us know the correct extent of the commerce clause. Thanks.
The ironic thing is that some folks in this thread are displaying the exact mentality that the birthers use–which is that “the law means exactly what I think it means, and I have completely foreclosed the possibility of anything to the contrary.” You guys and the birthers are like tax protesters that read laws all askew to satisfy their own interpretations. I think it’s OK to take a stab at determining what the law means for yourself, but acting like that is the final word is ridiculous.
Being a Canadian, I still don’t understand your system much, but let me make a slight hijack (the way this thread is going, a hijack is frankly welcomed) and ask:
Let’s say I was a member of the electoral college from Missouri*. And I made a bold pledge with my votes, something which no other elector has done, let’s say I do pledge (publicly) my votes to Obama for Prez and Palin for Veep. Would the Missouri ballot have to have choices for “McCain/Palin”, “Obama/Biden” and “Obama/Palin” because of me?
- or does this shit only fly in Nebraska and Maine where they have split votes?
Doesn’t work that way. The Electoral College does not have standing members. In each state, voters vote for a slate of electors already pledged to a particular candidate and his running mate (not for the candidate himself, although the ballot may be printed that way). What looks like a direct national election is really 51 simultaneous indirect state+DC elections.
The members of each slate are chosen by their state parties, usually as a gesture for their long service and dedication to the party. That, and the pledge, which is legally required in some states, make it almost unthinkable for a so-called “faithless elector” to exist, but it’s happened.
No. In theory, you might be able to get that combination listed on the ballot by jumping through the same hoops required for non-duopoly parties to get on the ballot. (Or you might not; many states have rules against the same candidate running under multiple party lines. New York is unusual in that it has a significant Conservative Party that typically nominates whoever the Republicans are running but may refuse to do so if the factions have a falling-out.)
In any case, that doesn’t really matter – as a matter of law, the Electoral College chooses the Vice President independently from its choice of the President, notwithstanding the fact that they are extremely unlikely to cross party lines.
[quote=“Rand_Rover, post:98, topic:539051”]
How am I the one hijacking exactly? I think Frank’s the hijacker–I just asked gonzo for a cite (which we’ll never see) and Frank went full metal retard on my ass.[/QUOTE
http://talkers.com/online/?p=71 Presently 1 and 3. Hannity slips in. but Beck has a longer time slot ,so he is more listened to than Hannity.
I’m prepared to agree that Rand Rover is a not a citizen of the U.S., just to eliminate the minuscule chance of him ever becoming president. I mean, geez… Americans would be dreaming of a Palin administration after that.
I don’t know. Zero taxes and all the burning buildings and cars you can warm your mitts at?
-Joe
Tempting in the short run, I’m sure…