If Texas or whatever other 'Republican' state puts the proportional system into effect first... GREAT! But I don't see why California should wait around to make things 'fair' for both parties, at the expense of the voters' will. My vote does not exist for the benefit of any political party; it exists for my voice to be heard.
So, by me wanting to have our electoral votes doled out in the most representative way possible, I'm now a 'Republican hack'? Please explain how that bit of logic works.
Oh, I see. Anything that might hurt the Democratic party's chances for winning is automatically a bad thing to you. And since in your small world, there are only two political parties (Ds and Rs), I must be on the Republican side. I don't vote for either party, thus my statement of "I don't care about political parties".
I read your full reply. Oh, are you referring to the part where you say:
I support the national popular vote system where states agree to continue with the current system until states with more than half of the electoral votes are signed on. This is the only fair way to implement a proportional system...
By 'fair', I guess you mean fair to both political parties. I don't care about political parties. If California enacts a more representative system for distributing our electoral votes, that's all I care about. I don't want to wait around for other states to get their act together.
Naturally this was proposed by the Republicans since they would then get 20 or 25 electoral votes they currently have no chance at. Obviously this would unfairly handicap the Democrats since they would still get 0% of the electoral votes from big Republican states like Texas.
And I could give a damn what it does or doesn't do for the Democrats. I just want our votes to represent (as accurately as possible within the electoral system) the will of the people. How quickly Democrats forget that California wasn't always a 'sure thing'. Maybe in a few years (or decades?), Democrats will be wishing they had been if favor of this.
States need to start handing out their electoral votes based on results from the individual representative districts, with the statewide winner getting both 'senate' votes. The "winner takes all" rule is so bizarre, and causes certain states (those with a moderate to high amount of electoral votes and razor-thin state-wide margins) to become more important than other states. I live in California, and Republican presidential candidates don't even bother coming here, and Democratic candidates use us as an ATM machine. They both know that all 55 electoral votes are going Democratic. Those people voting Republican in northern districts aren't being represented in the electoral college vote.
Of course, the second people started talking about using this district-based system, the Democrats started whining, because they knew this would cost them around 20-25 electoral votes that they currently don't have to work for.
Everything that unions were formed to do (wages, overtime, safety, etc.) were signed into law decades ago (minimum wage, 40hr work week, OSHA). Unions now seem to exist solely to squeeze as much money out of a company for as little work as possible (thus driving US industries into the ground), all the while making the union bosses richer and more powerful.
And I tire of the people that think I should support unions today because of what they did decades ago. You might as well argue that we should still support and pay abolitionist because, you know, they helped end slavery. Never mind the fact that slavery has been illegal for over a century now.
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." And so on. Please stop acting like an expert on things that you are completely wrong on.
The automotive and airline companies are PAYING people to stop working, because they can't simply lay off the workers. Yep, unions have nothing to do with that.
Amendment I: The government CAN NOT restrict religion or speech Amendment II: The government CAN NOT restrict citizens from keeping arms Amendment III: The government CAN NOT quarter soldiers in your house Amendment IV: The government CAN NOT search and seize your affects without a warrent etc.
*You industry driven into the ground (automotive, airlines, steel, etc.), since the company can no longer make hiring/firing/pay decisions based on economic or performance factors.
"But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush"...and completely irrelevant to the topic, which is search and seizure when entering the US. Please go to a relevant story to bash Bush.
Who are the morons modding this as 'insightful'? What is this, moveon.org?
This would be a good thing, but ONLY if phones were required to be used on any network. Imagine shelling out $500 up front for a phone with company X. Then after a month or two, you realize that their service/coverage/whatever sucks. Then you try to switch to company Y, only to find out that your $500 phone ONLY works on company X's network. That $500 for the phone starts to look a lot like an early disconnect fee.
"I would prefer to have two channels of good content instead of a single channel..."
But they have HUNDREDS of channels, and probably only enough decent content for a fraction of those channels. This looks like the MHz wars all over again.
Cable guy 1:"We have a ZILLION channels!"
Cable guy 2:"Oh, yeah, we a GAZILLION channels!!!!"
Consumer (flipping through a bazillion channels): "Shit. Nothing good on tv tonight."
"The tickets could be parceled out from a production company which gets a lot of say, ten of them. "
So they have no idea who is actually going to show up, thus negating their whole 'security' argument.
If they want to know who is in the theater during the ceremony (for 'security' reasons... dun dun dun!), why do they even have physical tickets? Why not just a list of who can get in? Do the invitees REALLY have to show a ticket to get in?
"Sorry, Mr. Cruise. No ticket, no entry!"
No wonder cancer hasn't been cured. I've been under the assumption all this time that SMART people were put in charge of cancer research. If this guy is the best we can come up with, we are frickin' doomed.
It wasn't unconstitutional when he handed out the marriage licenses, thus he was breaking the law. Why they didn't throw his ass in jail for giving out illegal government documents is beyond me. What if the mayor of some city decided to hand out 'slave licenses' and try to pass them off as real government documents?
BTW, I actually have no problem with gay marriage, I just hate the way Mayor Newsom and the courts have basically told the voters of California that their votes and wishes don't mean squat to them.
The Volt has an onboard gasoline generator to constantly recharge the batteries for trips longer than 40 miles. 95% of my trips right now are less than 40 miles, so I can run on electricity most of the time. When I have long trip, I can run with the gasoline generator.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you want California carved up like this, but don't want republican strongholds like the southeastern block put through the same peacemeal process.
I challenge you to point out where I ever said that I don't want other states to use the proportional system.
...by focusing laserlike on california,...
You probably didn't see my first post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=646439&cid=24607769
I live in California,...
If Texas or whatever other 'Republican' state puts the proportional system into effect first... GREAT! But I don't see why California should wait around to make things 'fair' for both parties, at the expense of the voters' will. My vote does not exist for the benefit of any political party; it exists for my voice to be heard.
So, by me wanting to have our electoral votes doled out in the most representative way possible, I'm now a 'Republican hack'? Please explain how that bit of logic works.
Oh, I see. Anything that might hurt the Democratic party's chances for winning is automatically a bad thing to you. And since in your small world, there are only two political parties (Ds and Rs), I must be on the Republican side. I don't vote for either party, thus my statement of "I don't care about political parties".
I read your full reply. Oh, are you referring to the part where you say:
I support the national popular vote system where states agree to continue with the current system until states with more than half of the electoral votes are signed on. This is the only fair way to implement a proportional system...
By 'fair', I guess you mean fair to both political parties. I don't care about political parties. If California enacts a more representative system for distributing our electoral votes, that's all I care about. I don't want to wait around for other states to get their act together.
Naturally this was proposed by the Republicans since they would then get 20 or 25 electoral votes they currently have no chance at. Obviously this would unfairly handicap the Democrats since they would still get 0% of the electoral votes from big Republican states like Texas.
And I could give a damn what it does or doesn't do for the Democrats. I just want our votes to represent (as accurately as possible within the electoral system) the will of the people. How quickly Democrats forget that California wasn't always a 'sure thing'. Maybe in a few years (or decades?), Democrats will be wishing they had been if favor of this.
States need to start handing out their electoral votes based on results from the individual representative districts, with the statewide winner getting both 'senate' votes. The "winner takes all" rule is so bizarre, and causes certain states (those with a moderate to high amount of electoral votes and razor-thin state-wide margins) to become more important than other states. I live in California, and Republican presidential candidates don't even bother coming here, and Democratic candidates use us as an ATM machine. They both know that all 55 electoral votes are going Democratic. Those people voting Republican in northern districts aren't being represented in the electoral college vote.
Of course, the second people started talking about using this district-based system, the Democrats started whining, because they knew this would cost them around 20-25 electoral votes that they currently don't have to work for.
Autobots are cars, Decepticons are planes!
Nerd license revoked!
Everything that unions were formed to do (wages, overtime, safety, etc.) were signed into law decades ago (minimum wage, 40hr work week, OSHA). Unions now seem to exist solely to squeeze as much money out of a company for as little work as possible (thus driving US industries into the ground), all the while making the union bosses richer and more powerful.
And I tire of the people that think I should support unions today because of what they did decades ago. You might as well argue that we should still support and pay abolitionist because, you know, they helped end slavery. Never mind the fact that slavery has been illegal for over a century now.
Amendments are still part of the constitution, so you can't just magically exclude them. Also, the 'main body' has limits listed in them as well:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
And so on. Please stop acting like an expert on things that you are completely wrong on.
"Unions have squat to do with it."
The automotive and airline companies are PAYING people to stop working, because they can't simply lay off the workers. Yep, unions have nothing to do with that.
Who the hell modded this insightful?
Amendment I: The government CAN NOT restrict religion or speech
Amendment II: The government CAN NOT restrict citizens from keeping arms
Amendment III: The government CAN NOT quarter soldiers in your house
Amendment IV: The government CAN NOT search and seize your affects without a warrent
etc.
You forgot to add:
*You industry driven into the ground (automotive, airlines, steel, etc.), since the company can no longer make hiring/firing/pay decisions based on economic or performance factors.
So, the state employees of California are making 1970 wages? No wonder they look so pissed at the DMV all the time...
"Seizing my person(me) for an indefinite period is very relevant...And that is the point of this topic."
You sure about that?
Topic: FISA and Border Searches of Laptops
Repeat after me: I am not a laptop.
"But the indefinite detainment we are now subject to we can blame on Bush" ...and completely irrelevant to the topic, which is search and seizure when entering the US. Please go to a relevant story to bash Bush.
Who are the morons modding this as 'insightful'? What is this, moveon.org?
That technical challenge looks like it was cleared... five years ago.
From the link: "posted Oct 22, 2003, 9:47 PM"
"The FCC today approved the Samsung SCH-A790, the world's first phone compatible with both North American CDMA networks and GSM networks overseas. "
Don't be so shy. Share these technical reasons with us.
This would be a good thing, but ONLY if phones were required to be used on any network. Imagine shelling out $500 up front for a phone with company X. Then after a month or two, you realize that their service/coverage/whatever sucks. Then you try to switch to company Y, only to find out that your $500 phone ONLY works on company X's network. That $500 for the phone starts to look a lot like an early disconnect fee.
"I would prefer to have two channels of good content instead of a single channel..."
But they have HUNDREDS of channels, and probably only enough decent content for a fraction of those channels. This looks like the MHz wars all over again.
Cable guy 1:"We have a ZILLION channels!"
Cable guy 2:"Oh, yeah, we a GAZILLION channels!!!!"
Consumer (flipping through a bazillion channels): "Shit. Nothing good on tv tonight."
"The tickets could be parceled out from a production company which gets a lot of say, ten of them. " So they have no idea who is actually going to show up, thus negating their whole 'security' argument.
If they want to know who is in the theater during the ceremony (for 'security' reasons... dun dun dun!), why do they even have physical tickets? Why not just a list of who can get in? Do the invitees REALLY have to show a ticket to get in? "Sorry, Mr. Cruise. No ticket, no entry!"
No wonder cancer hasn't been cured. I've been under the assumption all this time that SMART people were put in charge of cancer research. If this guy is the best we can come up with, we are frickin' doomed.
If the courts hadn't ruled it unconstitutional yet, the how was it unconstitutional at the time?
By your logic, I can declare ANYTHING unconstitutional right now, since, you know, some court in the future MIGHT rule it unconstitutional.
It wasn't unconstitutional when he handed out the marriage licenses, thus he was breaking the law. Why they didn't throw his ass in jail for giving out illegal government documents is beyond me. What if the mayor of some city decided to hand out 'slave licenses' and try to pass them off as real government documents?
BTW, I actually have no problem with gay marriage, I just hate the way Mayor Newsom and the courts have basically told the voters of California that their votes and wishes don't mean squat to them.
The Volt has an onboard gasoline generator to constantly recharge the batteries for trips longer than 40 miles. 95% of my trips right now are less than 40 miles, so I can run on electricity most of the time. When I have long trip, I can run with the gasoline generator.
You do know that the Volt HAS an "internal combustion back-up"? It's what you use for trips over 40 miles (the range of the batteries).