Mallard (11-12)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Mallard Fillmore . . . was funny!:
<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20081112>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Lothar Frings
> Well, it happens once every few months, so I guess it was due:
> Mallard Fillmore . . . was funny!:
Probably Tinsley did this one before November 4...
He'll be boiling mad again soon enough.
Tove Momerathsson
How can Tinsley possibly be unhappy? As of November 5th,
every single thing that goes wrong is the Democrats' fault.
Tove
George Peatty
wrote:
>How can Tinsley possibly be unhappy? As of November 5th,
>every single thing that goes wrong is the Democrats' fault.
No, not till January. We have a grace period until the inauguration ..
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
In his eyes, how is that any different than now?
Ron Bauerle
> Well, it happens once every few months, so I guess it was due:
> Mallard Fillmore . . . was funny!:
>
> <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20081112>
Maybe some statistics major can explain how you can have a
+3 margin of error around 8.5 on a presumed 10-point scale...
Ron
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
I think that was part of the joke.
Mike Beede
<9726ce9f-232d-498d...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
Ron Bauerle <ron.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
You just hate ducks.
Mike Beede
Lothar Frings
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:55:29 -0500, Tove Momerathsson <t...@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> >How can Tinsley possibly be unhappy? As of November 5th,
> >every single thing that goes wrong is the Democrats' fault.
>
> No, not till January. We have a grace period until the inauguration ..
BTW - if memory serves it is still possible
that Obama won't be the next President because
in theory the majority of all electors could
elect McCain, right?
Dann
news:d75fa711-004b-4bf5...@p35g2000prm.googlegroups.com.
It's technically possible, but practically impossible.
It is far more likely that we have a repeat of 1976 and one or two of Mr.
McCain's electors may vote for another Republican to signal who they want
to have as the standard bearer in 2012. And that isn't very likely to
happen in the first place.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Lothar Frings
> It is far more likely that we have a repeat of 1976 and one or two of Mr.
> McCain's electors may vote for another Republican to signal who they want
> to have as the standard bearer in 2012.
So... it is possible to vote Republican but
not McCain? I thought it'd have to be either
McCain or Obama after the pre-elections.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>
wrote:
> So... it is possible to vote Republican but
> not McCain? I thought it'd have to be either
> McCain or Obama after the pre-elections.
Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional. There might
be some other political fallout to such an event, however ...
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Kirshenbaum
> BTW - if memory serves it is still possible that Obama won't be the
> next President because in theory the majority of all electors could
> elect McCain, right?
In theory, the majority of all electors could elect Ted Stevens, Nancy
Pelosi, Joe the Plumber, or any other natural-born citizen at least 35
years old with the exception of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In the previous article, Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>> So... it is possible to vote Republican but not McCain? I thought
>> it'd have to be either McCain or Obama after the pre-elections.
>
> Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
> They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
> Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
Nope. She's only 28.
The restrictions are (1) natural-born citizen, (2) at least 35 years
old, (3) at least 14 years in the US, and (4) haven't already been
elected twice (or once if you've also served more than two years of
somebody else's term). Anybody who meets them is fair game.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are
|the laws of nature.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw
Evan Kirshenbaum
> INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>
>> In the previous article, Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>> So... it is possible to vote Republican but not McCain? I thought
>>> it'd have to be either McCain or Obama after the pre-elections.
>>
>> Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
>> They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
>> Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
>
> Nope. She's only 28.
>
> The restrictions are (1) natural-born citizen, (2) at least 35 years
> old, (3) at least 14 years in the US, and (4) haven't already been
> elected twice (or once if you've also served more than two years of
> somebody else's term). Anybody who meets them is fair game.
Oh, I forgot. The first clause has an alternative: "or a citizen of
the United States when the Constitution was adopted". I don't think
there are too many of those left anymore.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to
|zero, but when you look in
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |detail....
(650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison
racs...@gmail.com
>
> Oh, I forgot. The first clause has an alternative: "or a citizen of
> the United States when the Constitution was adopted". I don't think
> there are too many of those left anymore.
True, but his wife lost her Senate seat, and he expressed interest in
the job a few years ago.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
James Nicoll
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
>
>> INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>>
>>> In the previous article, Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So... it is possible to vote Republican but not McCain? I thought
>>>> it'd have to be either McCain or Obama after the pre-elections.
>>>
>>> Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
>>> They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
>>> Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
>>
>> Nope. She's only 28.
>>
>> The restrictions are (1) natural-born citizen, (2) at least 35 years
>> old, (3) at least 14 years in the US, and (4) haven't already been
>> elected twice (or once if you've also served more than two years of
>> somebody else's term). Anybody who meets them is fair game.
>
>Oh, I forgot. The first clause has an alternative: "or a citizen of
>the United States when the Constitution was adopted". I don't think
>there are too many of those left anymore.
Unless someone wanted to argue that this covers the updated
Constitution as well, so someone who was in the US the last time they
adopted a new Amendment would be covered (I don't believe this is a
valid point of view, fwiw). That would include any American of
foreign birth who was in the US in 1992 when the 27th Amendment
was passed.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>
>> INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>>
>>> In the previous article, Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> So... it is possible to vote Republican but not McCain? I thought
>>>> it'd have to be either McCain or Obama after the pre-elections.
>>>
>>> Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
>>> They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
>>> Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
>>
>> Nope. She's only 28.
>>
>> The restrictions are (1) natural-born citizen, (2) at least 35 years
>> old, (3) at least 14 years in the US, and (4) haven't already been
>> elected twice (or once if you've also served more than two years of
>> somebody else's term). Anybody who meets them is fair game.
>
>Oh, I forgot. The first clause has an alternative: "or a citizen of
>the United States when the Constitution was adopted". I don't think
>there are too many of those left anymore.
>
>--
>Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
There's probably some vampires from that era still around. I don't think
there's any requirement that the President has to work during the day.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com>
wrote:
> > Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
> > They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
> > Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
>
> Nope. She's only 28.
Yeah, forgot that bit.
George Peatty
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>> > Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
>> > They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
>> > Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
>> Nope. She's only 28.
>Yeah, forgot that bit.
No way. I want a constitutional amendment, because Jessica Simpson would
make a really great president .. Well, a really hot president, and there's
nothing wrong with that. Though I'm not sure the country could survive an
administration that couldn't tell the difference between chicken and tuna ..
Paul
news:abhrh4t4dvjftpa1c...@4ax.com:
We already had a Teenage Girl President, even relevant to this group!
--
Paul
Sherwood Harrington
> There's probably some vampires from that era still around. I don't think
> there's any requirement that the President has to work during the day.
The current one certainly doesn't.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Antonio E. Gonzalez
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>In the previous article, Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de>
>wrote:
>> So... it is possible to vote Republican but
>> not McCain? I thought it'd have to be either
>> McCain or Obama after the pre-elections.
>
>Electors are not legally bound to vote for their assigned candidate.
>They could all collectively decide to put Jessica Simpson into the
>Oval Office, and it would be perfectly constitutional. There might
>be some other political fallout to such an event, however ...
"Some"?!
Oh, and as someone pointed out, she's not yet of proper age . . .
Paul Ciszek
In article <Dp6dnVoDGbdj0IHU...@posted.localnet>,
Why wait? Some people have been blaming the financial collapse on
the Obama administration since well before the election.
Not to mention he's got us mired in this unwinnable war!
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Paul Ciszek
In article <gfkhkk$jj9$1...@blue.rahul.net>,
Sherwood Harrington <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
>
>> There's probably some vampires from that era still around. I don't think
>> there's any requirement that the President has to work during the day.
>
>The current one certainly doesn't.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pantufla/114081011/
Paul Ciszek
>the United States when the Constitution was adopted". I don't think
>there are too many of those left anymore.
Well, this came up in a discussion of whether Dr. Who could run for
President of the US. He could go back in time, become a citizen of
the US just before the constitution is adopted, make sure there are
records of his existance there and then, then return to 2010
or whatever with evidence to document that he is the same person.
Pat O'Neill
> In theory, the majority of all electors could elect Ted Stevens, Nancy
> Pelosi, Joe the Plumber, or any other natural-born citizen at least 35
> years old with the exception of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
>
Actually, no--almost every state has a law that requires its electors
to vote for the person who received the most votes in that state.
Paul Ciszek
In article <8998503d-3cdf-4c74...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
Meaning that the state can punish them afterwards for voting wrong; their
vote is whatever it is, though.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote, quoting
Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net>:
> >Actually, no--almost every state has a law that requires its electors
> >to vote for the person who received the most votes in that state.
>
> Meaning that the state can punish them afterwards for voting wrong;
> their vote is whatever it is, though.
At least one state (North Carolina) has a law that cancels the vote of
any faithless elector. I think it's pretty obviously unconstitutional,
but no court has ruled on the subject as yet.
Pat is (unsurprisingly) wrong, BTW: there are quite a few states with
laws "requiring" electors to vote as pledged (and those requirements
have been upheld by the Supreme Court), but it's pretty far from "almost
every" one.
Default User
> George Peatty <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in
> news:abhrh4t4dvjftpa1c...@4ax.com:
> > No way. I want a constitutional amendment, because Jessica Simpson
> > would make a really great president .. Well, a really hot president,
> > and there's nothing wrong with that. Though I'm not sure the
> > country could survive an administration that couldn't tell the
> > difference between chicken and tuna ..
>
> We already had a Teenage Girl President, even relevant to this group!
Have. She's back.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Default User
>
> In article
> <8998503d-3cdf-4c74...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
> Pat O'Neill <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote: >On Nov 14, 11:08 am,
> > Actually, no--almost every state has a law that requires its
> > electors to vote for the person who received the most votes in that
> > state.
>
> Meaning that the state can punish them afterwards for voting wrong;
> their vote is whatever it is, though.
Some have laws that will remove an elector that fails to follow the
pledged vote. A new elector will be selected that will vote correctly.
For the most part, as the party selects the electors, getting in
trouble there is usually bigger deterent.
Lothar Frings
> Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> writes:
> > BTW - if memory serves it is still possible that Obama won't be the
> > next President because in theory the majority of all electors could
> > elect McCain, right?
>
> In theory, the majority of all electors could elect Ted Stevens, Nancy
> Pelosi, Joe the Plumber, or any other natural-born citizen at least 35
> years old with the exception of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.
Sounds like it'll be an improvement in any case.
Detox
Over Mr. Obama? Sheesh. Let the guy at least take the oath of office
before you start slagging him.
--
Regards,
Dann
Dann
@reader1.panix.com.
> Unless someone wanted to argue that this covers the updated
> Constitution as well, so someone who was in the US the last time they
> adopted a new Amendment would be covered (I don't believe this is a
> valid point of view, fwiw). That would include any American of
> foreign birth who was in the US in 1992 when the 27th Amendment
> was passed.
Hey! A way to get another California Governator into the White House!!
Lothar Frings
> On Nov 17, 3:23 am, Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Sounds like it'll be an improvement in any case.
>
> Over Mr.Obama? Sheesh. Let the guy at least take the oath of office
> before you start slagging him.
No, I meant over Bush and Clinton.
The most important thing is that the asshole
is gone - I wish Mr. Bush a very slow and
very painful death... and soon. He's earned it.
Detox
"For those who've fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected
will never know."
--
Regards,
Dann
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Detox wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 3:23 am, Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > Sounds like it'll be an improvement in any case.
>
> > Over Mr.Obama? Sheesh. Let the guy at least take the oath of office
> > before you start slagging him.
>
> No, I meant over Bush and Clinton.
>
> The most important thing is that the asshole
> is gone - I wish Mr. Bush a very slow and
> very painful death... and soon. He's earned it.
Bush and Cheney can be accussed of many things, and deservedly so, but
no one deserves to be wished a very slow and very painful death- yes,
not even Hitler (Pre-emptively invoking Godwin's Law)
ronniecat
75569a...@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Golly. It's a shame the outgoing President and Vice-President will never
know the true full and rich flavour of the freedom they're supposedly
sending other people to die for.
ronnie
--
Address altered to avoid spam; remove mycollar to reply
http://www.hearingloss.blogspot.com
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:669417cb-c767-4ee2-963c-
> 75569a5d1...@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:29 am, Lothar Frings <da_lo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Detox wrote:
> >> > On Nov 17, 3:23 am, Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> > > Sounds like it'll be an improvement in any case.
>
> >> > Over Mr.Obama? Sheesh. Let the guy at least take the oath of offi
> > ce
> >> > before you start slagging him.
>
> >> No, I meant over Bush and Clinton.
>
> >> The most important thing is that the asshole
> >> is gone - I wish Mr. Bush a very slow and
> >> very painful death... and soon. He's earned it.
>
> > "For those who've fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected
> > will never know."
>
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Dann
>
> Golly. It's a shame the outgoing President and Vice-President will never
> know the true full and rich flavour of the freedom they're supposedly
> sending other people to die for.
>
> ronnie
True, but most of us never will, either.
Harold Burton
ronniecat <ronn...@mycollarronniecat.com> wrote:
> Detox <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:669417cb-c767-4ee2-963c-
> 75569a...@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 18, 9:29 am, Lothar Frings <da_lo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Detox wrote:
> >> > On Nov 17, 3:23 am, Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> > > Sounds like it'll be an improvement in any case.
> >>
> >> > Over Mr.Obama? Sheesh. Let the guy at least take the oath of offi
> > ce
> >> > before you start slagging him.
> >>
> >> No, I meant over Bush and Clinton.
> >>
> >> The most important thing is that the asshole
> >> is gone - I wish Mr. Bush a very slow and
> >> very painful death... and soon. He's earned it.
> >
> > "For those who've fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected
> > will never know."
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Dann
>
> Golly. It's a shame the outgoing President and Vice-President will never
> know the true full and rich flavour of the freedom they're supposedly
> sending other people to die for.
Pretty much like several other Presidents; Wilson and Johnson come
immediately to mind.
Detox
> Detox <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:669417cb-c767-4ee2-963c-
> 75569a5d1...@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> Detox wrote:
> >> > On Nov 17, 3:23 am, Lothar Frings <Lothar.Fri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> > > Sounds like it'll be an improvement in any case.
>
> >> > Over Mr.Obama? Sheesh. Let the guy at least take the oath of offi
> > ce
> >> > before you start slagging him.
>
> >> No, I meant over Bush and Clinton.
>
> >> The most important thing is that the asshole
> >> is gone - I wish Mr. Bush a very slow and
> >> very painful death... and soon. He's earned it.
>
> > "For those who've fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected
> > will never know."
>
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Dann
>
> Golly. It's a shame the outgoing President and Vice-President will never
> know the true full and rich flavour of the freedom they're supposedly
I fixed it for you.
The objective is for the other guys to die for his country/cause.
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>> sending other people to _fight_ *against*.
>
>I fixed it for you.
>
Fixed again . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Lothar Frings
So every asshole that slaughtered a lot of people
supposedly is secretly fighting for freedom -
but you'll never know. "I could tell you, but
then I'd have to kill you... too."