BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:18 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,





Drifter wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"BCBlazysusan" wrote in message
...
On Nov 2, 9:08 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
wrote in message

..
.
On Nov 2, 5:04 pm, Telamon
wrote:
SNIP

At last, I am a centrist, and a Constitutionalist. I was fully prepared
to
vote for Ron Paul, but with such a poor showing, was not going to just
throw
my vote away (the USPS did it FOR me, however)
I'm sorry to hear that Brenda.
That I was going to vote for Ron Paul, or that I didn't get the chance to
vote at all? (USPS BYTES)

I'm sorry that you did not get a chance to vote.

Sorry here too Brenda. back a few years, you could take your passport
to an American embassy, and fill out what they called an embassy ballet.
if i remember, up to the first of Nov. and it would go out by cable, or
telex, or the famous embassy pouch. for some strange reason, R.R.
stopped it. after all these years i still get a kick when i vote, makes
me feel good inside.

You bet. Tomorrow I go to my polling place to vote and be a part of the
process.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am going to say this, I have never stated this (I don't think- may
be wrong) on the internet but this is unfortunately the real way I
feel. I just have never been convinced that my vote could 'literally'
decide who is going to be the Commander in Chief. If I am wrong there
then there is someone out there- whoever they are- that at that exact
moment of counting the votes is the one that is choosing the leader of
the free world. I really (unfortunately) believe the saying that "If
voting "truly" made a difference, the government would outlaw it." I
may ruffle some feathers by saying that, but I have had the sneaking
suspicion that voting is one of the greatest hoaxes (among others)
that the gubiment ever created. I don't know. I hope and pray I am
wrong, but the government doesn't allow "The People" to decide
anything ie; The Bailout etc. etc. etc. They don't trust that people
can make the right decisions for themselves so they are the ones that
do it irregardless what the people really want or what makes them more
affluent. I don't know- hope I didn't upset anyone too terribly bad
but I just felt the need to say it. duck- n- cover

1 (one) vote may not count for all that much out of millions of votes, but what if
all of the people who think that their 1 (one) vote doesn't count don't vote?

Elections can, and are, lost because of all the individuals who think that their 1
(one) vote doesn't count.

Go Vote!

And vote NoBama!

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

1 (one) vote may not count for all that much out of millions of votes, but
what if
all of the people who think that their 1 (one) vote doesn't count don't
vote?

Elections can, and are, lost because of all the individuals who think that
their 1
(one) vote doesn't count.

If only the "popular vote" was counted, then every vote would count. But
the way everyone's vote is compartmentalized into states (the "electoral
college" scam), all it takes is one person voting in each state to determine
the winner.

Example: You want to vote for candidate Tweedle Dee, but you say **** it I
don't feel like voting. Your state goes for Tweedle Dee, but candidate
Tweedle Dum wins the election.

Explain to me again how "every vote counts". Your vote would have made
absolutely no difference at all, because of the "electoral college"
bull****. If popular votes counted, then your vote COULD have made a
difference.

The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.

Bob Campbell wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

1 (one) vote may not count for all that much out of millions of votes, but
what if
all of the people who think that their 1 (one) vote doesn't count don't
vote?

Elections can, and are, lost because of all the individuals who think that
their 1
(one) vote doesn't count.

If only the "popular vote" was counted, then every vote would count. But
the way everyone's vote is compartmentalized into states (the "electoral
college" scam), all it takes is one person voting in each state to determine
the winner.

Example: You want to vote for candidate Tweedle Dee, but you say **** it I
don't feel like voting. Your state goes for Tweedle Dee, but candidate
Tweedle Dum wins the election.

Explain to me again how "every vote counts". Your vote would have made
absolutely no difference at all, because of the "electoral college"
bull****. If popular votes counted, then your vote COULD have made a
difference.

The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.

But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major population
centres.

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Why? They already have the most "electoral college" votes anyway. What
would change?

I'll tell you what would change. EVERY VOTE WOULD COUNT! That's why it
won't happen, and national politics will continue to concentrate on "the
states with major population centres".

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

I'm neither Liberal/Democrat/Marxist nor whining. The last time I voted
was in 88, and I voted for Bush. But hey, nice attempt to label me just
because you disagree with my point.

Bob Campbell wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Why? They already have the most "electoral college" votes anyway. What
would change?

Can't figure it out, can you, Bob?



I'll tell you what would change. EVERY VOTE WOULD COUNT!

Every vote does count, Bob, it's just that you don't quite get it.

That's why it
won't happen, and national politics will continue to concentrate on "the
states with major population centres".

You Liberal/Democrat/Marxists need to stop whining.

I'm neither Liberal/Democrat/Marxist nor whining. The last time I voted
was in 88, and I voted for Bush. But hey, nice attempt to label me just
because you disagree with my point.

OK, but you are a whiner.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Bob Campbell wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Why? They already have the most "electoral college" votes anyway.
What
would change?

Can't figure it out, can you, Bob?

Obviously you can't, since you have no answer.

It's OK, I didn't really expect one from you, the known kook of rrs.

I can't wait, can you just call me "tard boy" now and get it over with?
Meanwhile I'll PLONK you and get THAT over with.

Bye

Bob Campbell wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Bob Campbell wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Why? They already have the most "electoral college" votes anyway.
What
would change?

Can't figure it out, can you, Bob?

Obviously you can't, since you have no answer.

It's OK, I didn't really expect one from you, the known kook of rrs.

I can't wait, can you just call me "tard boy" now and get it over with?
Meanwhile I'll PLONK you and get THAT over with.

Thanks, Bob.

"dxAce" wrote in message
...
The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way
to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.

But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Centres? Are our Canadian neighbours rubbing off on you, Steve?

Also, you think that states with major populations centers don't already
control the elections? Montana is a huge state, but still has only 3
electoral votes. Like it or not, the vast majority of the populace is
concentrated in or near the big cities..

Brenda Ann wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
The fact that it is possible get the most actual votes, yet lose the
election is proof that the "electoral college" bull**** is an absurd way
to
elect a national leader. The person with the most votes should win, not
based on where those votes came from.
But then the power would all be concentrated in the states with major
population
centres.

Centres? Are our Canadian neighbours rubbing off on you, Steve?

Also, you think that states with major populations centers don't already
control the elections? Montana is a huge state, but still has only 3
electoral votes. Like it or not, the vast majority of the populace is
concentrated in or near the big cities..


Just like the Israelis turning into Nazis, Steve is becoming Canadian.

The good news here is no more Wicker - Musgrove ads.
cuhulin