Hey Zipser!
Paul Dragon
Barrett Crowe
Barrett
"Paul Dragon" <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t0lj3ns...@corp.supernews.com...
Paul Dragon
Barrett Crowe <blue...@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8ufrj8$g0v$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Yutte Hermsgervordenbrotborda (James)
Paul Dragon wrote:
>
> I dunno..he hasn't been around much the last few days...
>
Maybe Zip is Jeb Bush in disguise :P
--
"I call the big one bitey..." Homer Simpson
Steve Zipser
>
>
> Paul Dragon wrote:
> >
> > I dunno..he hasn't been around much the last few days...
> >
> Maybe Zip is Jeb Bush in disguise :P
I don't think so :-)
I voted for Gore
Zip
BizarroTerl
Shaun9010
<z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>I don't think so :-)
>I voted for Gore
>Zip
Not suprising, most liars & criminals identify with their own.
Mike Littlefield
Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c115c...@news-server.optonline.net...
Steve Zipser
Bizarro...@acostallc.com says...
> Are you sure you didn't vote for Buchanan by mistake?
Heh heh - nope - That happened in Palm Beach County, BTW - I'm in Dade
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound PASS PSB DUNLAVY REGA LEXICON EAD PSB
ORACLE Gallo Panasonic Video Straightwire Audible Illusions and lots
more!
*CHECK OUT OUR LIST OF SPECIALS ON OUR WEBSITE*
Steve Zipser
says...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:52:12 -0500, Steve Zipser
> <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think so :-)
> >I voted for Gore
> >Zip
>
>
> Not suprising, most liars & criminals identify with their own.
>
Shaun, I know you are learning disabled, reading disabled, and have an
inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, but one of the two
candidates has a criminal record. That would be Mr. Bush. That happens
to makes you a blithering idiot ;-)
Have a great day!
Zip
Paul Dragon
Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1475d5a73...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
>
> I don't think so :-)
> I voted for Gore
> Zip
Yeah but that might not make a difference, it probably got counted as
Buchanan! :)
Paul Dragon
> >I voted for Gore
> >Zip
>
>
Well it's good to see Shaun90210 is in good spirits this morning.
Shaun9010
<z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
Well I guess the pothead who was soliciting millions from Communist
china for bubba's election was legal ? Only a stupid ass bleeding
heart would say "DUI" is on the same level as selling out america.Its
so ironic bubba endorsed "the butchers of beijing" into the WTO when
they murder falun gong members and threaten Taiwan with nukes unless
they fall into ccp party lines. Gee, i wonder why china has "ALL" our
most precious nuclear secrets as well ?? Hmmmm, can you say "treason
Or payback "
Stick to what you know best yenta boy, which is basically nothing.
>
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." (Al Gore, CNN’s "Late Edition
with Wolf Blitzer," 3/9/99)
Shaun9010
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1475d5a73...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
>> In article <3A0B7822...@idt.net>, jam...@idt.net says...
>
>>
>> I don't think so :-)
>> I voted for Gore
>> Zip
>
>Yeah but that might not make a difference, it probably got counted as
>Buchanan! :)
Well, considering around 20 million minorities collecting welfare
checks accounted for Goron's total vote its really irrelevant ..I
think like 20 million Jews voted for Goron if you actually consider
them Americans..
>
>
>
Steve Zipser
says...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:43:18 -0500, Steve Zipser
> <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> Well I guess the pothead who was soliciting millions from Communist
> china for bubba's election was legal ?
We are not talking about Clinton. See there is that problem with
stupidity you have, Shaun. I do not believe Clinton was on any abllot
this year (excepting NY - and that was a different clinton!).
> Only a stupid ass bleeding heart would say "DUI" is on the same
> level as selling out america.
(1) Please show me where I said that
(2) Please show me where I am a liberal bleeding heart.
For your information, you little cowardly little twit, I served in the
United States Navy for several years during the Viet Nam war. I stayed
in the USNR for another five years. So much for your bleeding heart
fantasy. I will bet you never served a single damn day in your whole
collegiate dumbass life.
> Its so ironic bubba endorsed "the butchers of beijing" into the WTO when
> they murder falun gong members and threaten Taiwan with nukes unless
> they fall into ccp party lines.
But it is alright to prop up Saddam Hussein, and a dozen or so tinplate
dictators in South and Central America? Besides - this is not the issue,
this has nothing to do with previous posts! As usual, you have a problem
with thinking in a straight line. I have no love for the PRC and think
we should not trade with them,m BTW.
> Gee, i wonder why china has "ALL" our most precious nuclear secrets
> as well ?? Hmmmm, can you say "treason Or payback "
I can say you are a dunderhead that has nary a clue about life, the world
or what 'secrets' the PRC has or does not have.
> Stick to what you know best yenta boy, which is basically nothing.
Here we go! Since you got completely clobbered in this little
disagreement you now resort to Jew-baiting!
You are a cowardly shickenshit turd. You are afraid to serve your own
country! You are now officially killfiled.
Zip
Steve Zipser
the cited author.]
In article <3a0c27fc...@news-server.optonline.net>, o...@online.net
says...
That says it all - ya little nazi faggot! KILLFILE
Shaun9010
<z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>In article <3a0c248a...@news-server.optonline.net>, o...@online.net
>says...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:43:18 -0500, Steve Zipser
>> <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well I guess the pothead who was soliciting millions from Communist
>> china for bubba's election was legal ?
>
>We are not talking about Clinton. See there is that problem with
>stupidity you have, Shaun. I do not believe Clinton was on any abllot
>this year (excepting NY - and that was a different clinton!).
Who's talking about Clinton you dense moron ? We are talking about the
ILLEGAL activities Goron provided for Uncle rapist.
Al Gore, when asked about his illegal fundraising activities that took
place in a Buddhist temple: "I didn't realize I was in a Buddhist
temple."
Yeah...I know a lot of places where bald men run around in orange
robes with incense burning.
>
>> Only a stupid ass bleeding heart would say "DUI" is on the same
>> level as selling out america.
>
>(1) Please show me where I said that
>(2) Please show me where I am a liberal bleeding heart.
Do i need to prove any of these points ?
>
>For your information, you little cowardly little twit, I served in the
>United States Navy for several years during the Viet Nam war. I stayed
>in the USNR for another five years. So much for your bleeding heart
>fantasy. I will bet you never served a single damn day in your whole
>collegiate dumbass life.
Well good for you gay squid, considering I registered for the draft
like anyone else you can kiss off. Were you drafted, i bet you
were..Oh yea, your a pussy..My dad is a retired 20yr Marine so save
your navy fairytales of you and the gulf of tonkin for someone who
beleives them.
>
>> Its so ironic bubba endorsed "the butchers of beijing" into the WTO when
>> they murder falun gong members and threaten Taiwan with nukes unless
>> they fall into ccp party lines.
>
>But it is alright to prop up Saddam Hussein, and a dozen or so tinplate
>dictators in South and Central America? Besides - this is not the issue,
>this has nothing to do with previous posts! As usual, you have a problem
>with thinking in a straight line. I have no love for the PRC and think
>we should not trade with them,m BTW.
This is the issue dippy,Gore & Clinton have pissed allover america
during the last eight years. When america is in the shitter due to the
criminals of china joining the wto, dont cry.
>
>> Gee, i wonder why china has "ALL" our most precious nuclear secrets
>> as well ?? Hmmmm, can you say "treason Or payback "
>
>I can say you are a dunderhead that has nary a clue about life, the world
>or what 'secrets' the PRC has or does not have.
Yo stupid, when a chinese w88 lands on your local temple you can call
Clinton & Gore from their Jail cells.
>
>> Stick to what you know best yenta boy, which is basically nothing.
>
>Here we go! Since you got completely clobbered in this little
>disagreement you now resort to Jew-baiting!
If the Jew fits, wear it
Will Briggs
> Well, considering around 20 million minorities collecting welfare
> checks accounted for Goron's total vote its really irrelevant ..I
> think like 20 million Jews voted for Goron if you actually consider
> them Americans..
>
> >
Yeah, they're definitely not really Americans - why don't we round them up
and put them in ovens?
Jesus, you're a pathetic little man. You're world view appears to be as
limited as your intellect. People like you give rise to Stalinist Russia,
Nazi Germany and other intolerant, hate-filled regimes. Your lack of
ability to reason on a coherent level equal to that of normal human beings
is mind boggling. At any rate, people like you often shave their heads and
get swastikas tattooed on their foreheads. I've often wondered what it must
be like to go through life completely out of touch with reality, and it's
people like you that give me glimpses into your twisted Twilight Zone of a
world.
-Will
Shaun9010
<wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu> wrote:
Oh blow it out your politically correct cornhole kid..After you move
out of mommies house and file your first W2 then come back and preach.
For the next ten years your opinion to me means absolutely squat.
Shaun9010
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
>news:3a0c115c...@news-server.optonline.net...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:52:12 -0500, Steve Zipser
>> <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't think so :-)
>> >I voted for Gore
>> >Zip
>>
>>
>> Not suprising, most liars & criminals identify with their own.
>
>Well it's good to see Shaun90210 is in good spirits this morning.
HAHA, just when you think its safe to back in the water..WHAMMM !!
>
>
Paul Dragon
Hitler loving bigot!
Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c3de4...@news-server.optonline.net...
Paul Dragon
Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c406a...@news-server.optonline.net...
Shaun9010
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A tad racist might be accurate, communist & fascist are two opposite
things I'm not.You on the otherhand probably voted for Billy Carter..
And please dragonnuts do us a favor and avoid using political terms
you have no clue about..Stick to exercising your "EE" degree building
subwoofers & configuring Dell servers with win98 bootdisks
>Wow. I'm sure he thinks that means alot coming from a communist, racist,
>Hitler loving bigot!
>
>
>Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
Will Briggs
tonight.
Oh, Shawn, btw, I've filed several W2s, even though I'm still in college.
If you think that working 30 hrs a week and going to classes full time is
easy, then I invite you to try it. I really like how your logic has
degraded to age-related arguments; that is truly the sign of a superior
intellect, as is racist name-calling. They really show off your quick wit
and fast thinking. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is over and done
with. Feeding racist trolls like you is a waste of my time.
-Will
"Paul Dragon" <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t0ohav...@corp.supernews.com...
Shaun9010
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thats funny stuff coming from Chukie Shroud *aka* Paul Dragonnuts
who uses Yahoo, supernews and everyother remailer know to mankind
>Yep. You can change your handle all you want, you can't hide from us.
>
>
>Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
Shaun9010
<wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu> wrote:
>Actually, it really hurt my feelings - I'm going to cry myself to sleep
>tonight.
>
>Oh, Shawn, btw, I've filed several W2s, even though I'm still in college.
>If you think that working 30 hrs a week and going to classes full time is
>easy, then I invite you to try it.
Hey Will, try 60hrs a week and school at night without mommies funds
Goodbye kid
I really like how your logic has
>degraded to age-related arguments; that is truly the sign of a superior
>intellect, as is racist name-calling. They really show off your quick wit
>and fast thinking. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is over and done
>with. Feeding racist trolls like you is a waste of my time.
>
>-Will
>
>"Paul Dragon" <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:t0ohav...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Wow. I'm sure he thinks that means alot coming from a communist, racist,
>> Hitler loving bigot!
>>
>>
>> Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
Will Briggs
no "mommies funds", just the money I make and scholarship money that I
worked my ass off for.
Ok, now I'm done.
-Will
"Shaun9010" <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c491d...@news-server.optonline.net...
Paul Dragon
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:35 -0800, "Paul Dragon"
> <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> A tad racist might be accurate, communist & fascist are two opposite
> things I'm not.
Well your racism is obvious, but I never said anything about being a
fascist.
>You on the otherhand probably voted for Billy Carter..
Hmm..I didn't realize he was running this year. What election are you
talking about here?
> And please dragonnuts do us a favor and avoid using political terms
> you have no clue about..Stick to exercising your "EE" degree building
> subwoofers & configuring Dell servers with win98 bootdisks
Oh, you mean those Dell servers that you said did NOT exist until I posted a
link and publicly humiliated you? He hee...that was funny. I think that's
when you first changed your handle...
Paul Dragon
Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c4876...@news-server.optonline.net...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:02:36 -0800, "Paul Dragon"
> <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Thats funny stuff coming from Chukie Shroud *aka* Paul Dragonnuts
> who uses Yahoo, supernews and everyother remailer know to mankind
>
> >Yep. You can change your handle all you want, you can't hide from us.
> >
> >
> >Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
JFKjr
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
>news:3a0c4618...@news-server.optonline.net...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:35 -0800, "Paul Dragon"
>> <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> A tad racist might be accurate, communist & fascist are two opposite
>> things I'm not.
>
>Well your racism is obvious, but I never said anything about being a
>fascist.
Yes you did dragonnuts, you said I was a hitler lover..Like I said,
leave the political terms alone.
>
>
>>You on the otherhand probably voted for Billy Carter..
>
>Hmm..I didn't realize he was running this year. What election are you
>talking about here?
>
>
>> And please dragonnuts do us a favor and avoid using political terms
>> you have no clue about..Stick to exercising your "EE" degree building
>> subwoofers & configuring Dell servers with win98 bootdisks
>
>Oh, you mean those Dell servers that you said did NOT exist until I posted a
>link and publicly humiliated you? He hee...that was funny. I think that's
>when you first changed your handle...
Never said dell servers dont exist you pathetic liar. I said dell is a
complete "NOBODY" in the server world where compaq reign supreme. We
sell Dell poweredge servers to small-mid range companies everyday.So
get you tiny head out of you ass and stop lying
Ok, I had my laugh of the day at dippy & chukies expense..LOL
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >Wow. I'm sure he thinks that means alot coming from a communist, racist,
>> >Hitler loving bigot!
>> >
>> >
>> >Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
Paul Dragon
What's the matter, Shaun??? Your racist, bigot mouth get you in trouble yet
again?? LOL!!!
JFKjr <go...@ccp.murder> wrote in message
news:3a0c500f...@news-server.optonline.net...
Shaun9010
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually dragonnuts that's the first handle, are you telling me your
having a problem associating shaun9020 & shaun9010 ?!? Are you sure
the population of Palm beach who couldn't fill out the ballots aren't
your direct family ?And no Chukie, I don't change my name or carrier
like some pussywillows named "Paul dragon ". I actually dont care nor
fear what some internet freaks from the sticks think about me Me
unlike you have a pair of balls and wont cow tow to arrogant nasty
Jewish salesman who hurl insults but cant take their own medicine.
Paul Dragon
Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c5776...@news-server.optonline.net...
Shaun9010
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>LOL!! SHAUN90210=RACIST LOSER!
LOL!! CHUKIESHROUD=PAULDRAGONNUTS=TRAILERPARKTRASH=ALABAMA=WIGGER !
Will Briggs
"Brian L. McCarty" <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
news:B63299A5.4525A%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article 3A0C0F64...@acostallc.com, BizarroTerl at
> Bizarro...@acostallc.com wrote on 11/11/00 1:08:
>
> > Are you sure you didn't vote for Buchanan by mistake?
>
> Everything Zipster does is a mistake.
>
> Ask him about the FORGERY of his State of Florida Corporation filings!
Didn't we already go over this? It's registered to his wife in her maiden
name. Is that really so terribly difficult to comprehend? At any rate, I
fail to see how this affects anyone on this newsgroup except for those of
you with nothing better to do than look up someone's Corporation filings in
your spare time. Get a life.
Paul Dragon
LOL!
Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c5c54...@news-server.optonline.net...
Shaun9010
<pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, takecare..its been fun
Paul Dragon
Shaun9010 <o...@online.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c5f7d...@news-server.optonline.net...
Steve Zipser
says...
Actually, we switched it over to my name for 2000, Will. When there are
tax advantages (totally legal) we switch.
Brian McDumbass didn't even know that Gigi Krop is my wife. Anyway, I
think McCarty, who is fat, ugly, stupid and anti-semetic has found his
soul mate in Shaun. Misery loves company!
Zip
--
Paul Dragon
off crying somewhere now. I hope you're happy ;)
It is kinda sickening to watch SArvicie4c and Shaun90210 battle for the
affection of Brain McFarty. I'll bet that would be one hell of a slapfest if
they were to ever meet face to face! GIRL FIGHT! GIRL FIGHT!! LOL!!
Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.147633b1e...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
Dan Brown
probably wanted criminals in Germany or Ireland.news:3a0c27fc...@news-server.optonline.net...
> >> In article <3A0B7822...@idt.net>, jam...@idt.net says...
> >
> >>
> >> I voted for Gore
> >> Zip
> >
> >Buchanan! :)
>
Dave Sarcevic
insult.news:t0oqr13...@corp.supernews.com...
> Oh, good job, Steve. You have hurt Dave Sarvieivics feelings. He's
probably
> off crying somewhere now. I hope you're happy ;)
>
> It is kinda sickening to watch SArvicie4c and Shaun90210 battle for the
> affection of Brain McFarty. I'll bet that would be one hell of a slapfest
if
> they were to ever meet face to face! GIRL FIGHT! GIRL FIGHT!! LOL!!
>
>
Steve Zipser
mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com says...
>
> No; communist and fascist are equal. Stalin killed far more people than
> Hitler, but since he's "left-wing" as opposed to "right-wing", he gets the
> kid glove treatment from our Marxist academia.
You are full of crap - name one person that believes Stalin was anything
less than a monster.
Zip
Will Briggs
"MusicMax" <mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:8FE8D990Emusi...@24.93.67.42...
> wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu (Will Briggs) wrote in
> <8uhe0n$1gr0m$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>:
>
> >
> >> Well, considering around 20 million minorities collecting welfare
> >> checks accounted for Goron's total vote its really irrelevant ..I
> >> think like 20 million Jews voted for Goron if you actually consider
> >> them Americans..
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >up and put them in ovens?
>
> If we were a democracy, the scenario you describe would be possible so
> long as the POPULAR VOTE in favor of it won a majority.
No shit, Sherlock. That's why there is no popular vote on the national
level. I still think that the Electoral College is a necessary body in our
country. Where did I say otherwise?
I do think, however, that states should split their electoral votes based on
the % each candidate won in the state. This wouldn't prevent the electors
from voting their conscience come Dec. 17, however.
-Will
Ron
mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com (MusicMax) wrote:
>pdra...@yahoo.com (Paul Dragon) wrote in <t0o69ahnp33h93
>@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>
>>Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.1475d5a73...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
>>> In article <3A0B7822...@idt.net>, jam...@idt.net says...
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so :-)
>>> I voted for Gore
>>> Zip
>>
>>Yeah but that might not make a difference, it probably got counted as
>>Buchanan! :)
>
>Heard on the news today that a second grade class of seventy-eight
>students was given a ballot with the exact same layout as the Palm Beach
>one. ALL SEVENTY-EIGHT SECOND GRADERS were able to understand the ballot
>and make the right choice (they were "voting" on their favorite Disney
>character, BTW).
Strange... A news item on TV yesterday evening said
that the ballot was tested (not by second graders,
though) and 50% got it wrong. Funny how news change
when related by Republicans.
Ron
mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com (MusicMax) wrote:
>o...@online.net (Shaun9010) wrote in <3a0c4618.19467616@news-
>server.optonline.net>:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:35 -0800, "Paul Dragon"
>><pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>A tad racist might be accurate, communist & fascist are two opposite
>>things
>
>No; communist and fascist are equal.
Are you nuts?
> Stalin killed far more people than
>Hitler, but since he's "left-wing" as
>opposed to "right-wing", he gets the
>kid glove treatment ...
Yes, you are (nuts...).
Both Stalin and Hitlr were mass murderers.
Hitler exterminated people for racist reasons.
stalin, for political reasons.
> from our Marxist academia.
Spoken like a true Republican. When you have
nothing bad to say about oponents, invent it.
Where did you find this 'Marxist academia'?
-- Ron
tom
I voted for Gore.........AND Buchanan.
"Steve Zipser" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1475d5a73...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
> In article <3A0B7822...@idt.net>, jam...@idt.net says...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I dunno..he hasn't been around much the last few days...
> > >
> > Maybe Zip is Jeb Bush in disguise :P
Sammy
o...@online.net (Shaun9010) wrote:
> I
> think like 20 million Jews voted for Goron if you actually consider
> them Americans..
Ahhh.. Another nazi shows up in the newsgroups. You'll get yours some
day, and I'll be smiling when it happens. And who is "Goron"?
Steve Zipser
> No shit, Sherlock. That's why there is no popular vote on the national
> level. I still think that the Electoral College is a necessary body in our
> country. Where did I say otherwise?
BULLSHIT - when the majority vote for a candidate, that candidate should
win. Period.
Zip
> I do think, however, that states should split their electoral votes based on
> the % each candidate won in the state. This wouldn't prevent the electors
> from voting their conscience come Dec. 17, however
>
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound PASS PSB DUNLAVY REGA LEXICON EAD PSB
ORACLE Gallo Panasonic Video Straightwire Audible Illusions and lots
more!
*CHECK OUT OUR LIST OF SPECIALS ON OUR WEBSITE*
Trotsky
arnii krooger
Dan Brown
"Sammy" <x...@xxx.xxx.invalid> wrote in message
news:t0rgjjj...@corp.supernews.com...
Will Briggs
> People should acquaint themselves of the REAL owner of this company so
they
> know who they will be suing. Jennifer to this day has never reported
> receiving any of the $3,000 owed to her by Zipswine Sunscam Stereo.
>
If I knew who Jennifer was, I might care. As it is, you might wanna try
talking to people that care about this... which, as far as I can tell, is
maybe 2 people on the entire NG.
> Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
> Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
> Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
> Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
> Zippie SOCKPUPPETS http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
>
Will Briggs
> In article <8ujr8i$86q1$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>, wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu says...
> > No shit, Sherlock. That's why there is no popular vote on the national
> > level. I still think that the Electoral College is a necessary body in
our
> > country. Where did I say otherwise?
>
> BULLSHIT - when the majority vote for a candidate, that candidate should
> win. Period.
> Zip
That's an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do. The problem here is that
if the majority decides it doesn't like the minority, it is easy for them to
vote in candidates that will pass legislation harmful to the minority. I
strongly recommend that people who are interested in this subject read the
Federalist Papers to see what the intentions of the founding fathers were.
They were scared, and rightly, at what would occur if the majority were led
astray without a system to keep everything in balance; that is why we live
in a Republic, and not a true democracy - true democracy can be a great
evil.
Another good read on this subject is Plato's Republic; concentrate
especially on the duties of a guardian of the republic.
-Will
Paul Dragon
Will Briggs <wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu> wrote in message
news:8umi2i$1jgg0$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu...
Will Briggs
messed up enough to have multiple personality disorder. Usually the
personalities are different though... hmm... in this case, it seems that all
of his personalities are egocentric, racist trolls with nothing better to do
than beg for attention by posting inflammatory remarks. I bet a shrink
would have a field day with that guy (or run screaming after 10 minutes of
"heart-to-heart" with him).
-Will
"Paul Dragon" <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t0tl5n3...@corp.supernews.com...
Will Briggs
-Will
"MusicMax" <mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:8FEAA8464musi...@24.93.67.41...
> wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu (Will Briggs) wrote in
> <8ujr8i$86q1$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>:
>
> >
> >"MusicMax" <mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:8FE8D990Emusi...@24.93.67.42...
> >> wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu (Will Briggs) wrote in
> >> <8uhe0n$1gr0m$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Well, considering around 20 million minorities collecting welfare
> >> >> checks accounted for Goron's total vote its really irrelevant ..I
> >> >> think like 20 million Jews voted for Goron if you actually consider
> >> >> them Americans..
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, they're definitely not really Americans - why don't we round
> >> >them up and put them in ovens?
> >>
> >> If we were a democracy, the scenario you describe would be possible so
> >> long as the POPULAR VOTE in favor of it won a majority.
> >
> >No shit, Sherlock. That's why there is no popular vote on the national
> >level. I still think that the Electoral College is a necessary body in
> >our country. Where did I say otherwise?
>
> I was reinforcing your point, not arguing with it.
Will Briggs
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of.Marxian Socialism, the materialist
conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through
the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change
and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now
and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions
influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic
conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more
than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real
directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the
existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the
natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism
denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of
society....
-Will
"MusicMax" <mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:8FEAA4B20musi...@24.93.67.41...
> ron***kill_spam_dead***a...@yahoo.com (Ron) wrote in <3a0d7db0.12255306
> @news.concentric.net>:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:35:58 GMT,
> >mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com (MusicMax) wrote:
> >
> >>o...@online.net (Shaun9010) wrote in <3a0c4618.19467616@news-
> >>server.optonline.net>:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:35 -0800, "Paul Dragon"
> >>><pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>A tad racist might be accurate, communist & fascist are two opposite
> >>>things
> >>
> >>No; communist and fascist are equal.
> >
> >Are you nuts?
>
> Not at all. Name a difference in the governing styles therein. Go ahead.
> Name one right here:_____________________________________________
>
> _________________________________________________________________
Randy
blue...@spamkillsmindspring.com says...
> They let Steve run Florida?!
Obviously! :-)
Randy
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> > level. I still think that the Electoral College is a necessary body in our
> > country. Where did I say otherwise?
>
> win. Period.
> Zip
1) You wouldn't be caught dead saying this if Bush had one the popular
vote by 1 vote and Gore won the electoral vote by 1 vote.
2) If you truly feel that way, then you will support an effort to
amend the US Constitution to reflect that in the future.
Randy
mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com says...
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001110/el/ballot_quiz_1.html
>
> The pertinent paragraphs are:
>
> "School psychologist Ron McGee asked the 8-year-olds at Lee County
> Elementary to vote for their favorite Disney character, using a ballot
> similar to the one that has caused controversy in Florida's Palm Beach
> County. The Palm Beach County ballot listed candidates in two columns,
> with a space down the center where the voter could mark his or her
> choice."
Interesting, but not quite scientific enough for me. So, I printed
out a copy of the actual ballot causing all of this BS off the web
and showed it to my 6 year old. I instructed her as follows,
"Read the form, and then mark it so that your vote will be for
Al Gore".
She passed with NO FURTHER ASSISTANCE. If it is easy enough for
a 1st grader, then I feel no concern over the inability of anyone
else to fill it out. If they can't at least be that intelligent,
then they should not be voting in the first place.
Steve Zipser
mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com says...
> z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote in
> <MPG.14778fdc9...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>:
> >In article <8ujr8i$86q1$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>, wbr...@zoo.uvm.edu
> >says...
> >> No shit, Sherlock. That's why there is no popular vote on the
> >> national level. I still think that the Electoral College is a
> >> necessary body in our country. Where did I say otherwise?
> >
> >BULLSHIT - when the majority vote for a candidate, that candidate
> >should win. Period.
>
> Congressmen or thirteen State Legislatures that do not agree with you.
>
> Come back when you attain the appropriate majorities.
You are an idiot. This country's basic freedoms are founded that all men
are created equal. That means ONE MAN = ONE VOTE. When the majority of
voters vote for one candidate, and the other candidate wins, that means
that the votes for the weaker candidate counted more. This is so
absolutely basic that it is stunning that idiots like you try to argue
the fact. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, conditions
were different, and furthermore, non-land owners could not vote, and
women could not vote, etc.
But in this day and age, one man equals one vote is the cornerstone of
democracy, and the electoral college system threatens that. Whether
Congress believe in it or not is not the point, though that oobviously
eludes you.
Steve Zipser
Steve Zipser
says...
> According to Mussolini, this is the difference between Facism and Communism:
>
> ...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of.Marxian Socialism, the materialist
> conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through
> the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change
> and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now
> and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions
> influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic
> conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more
> than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real
> directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the
> existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the
> natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism
> denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of
> society....
>
>
>
> -Will
We'll make it simple
In Communisim, the state runs industry
In Fascism, Industry runs the state
Zip
Steve Zipser
ra...@thegateway.net says...
> > > No shit, Sherlock. That's why there is no popular vote on the national
> > > level. I still think that the Electoral College is a necessary body in our
> > > country. Where did I say otherwise?
> >
> > BULLSHIT - when the majority vote for a candidate, that candidate should
> > win. Period.
>
> 1) You wouldn't be caught dead saying this if Bush had one the popular
> vote by 1 vote and Gore won the electoral vote by 1 vote.
Randy, I realize you are one of those Crush Bimbo reactionaries, so
listen carefully - I have supported the dissolution of the Electoral
College since I was old enough to vote, and I do not give a shit who it
benefits or does not benefit in this situation. I think it is
antiquated, stupid, open to obvious corruption, and ultimately stands in
the way of true democracy.
> 2) If you truly feel that way, then you will support an effort to
> amend the US Constitution to reflect that in the future.
I always have. I have supported candidates in the past, both Republican
and Democrat (I split my votes this year and have done so before - unlike
most of you ultra-rightwing drones) who advocate ON MAN EQUALS ONE VOTE.
Nothing else is fair.
Zip
Will Briggs
> antiquated, stupid, open to obvious corruption, and ultimately stands in
> the way of true democracy.
Aye, there's the rub, as Hamlet would say - we don't live in a democracy.
-Will
Randy
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> This country's basic freedoms are founded that all men
> are created equal. That means ONE MAN = ONE VOTE. When the majority of
> voters vote for one candidate, and the other candidate wins, that means
> that the votes for the weaker candidate counted more. This is so
> absolutely basic that it is stunning that idiots like you try to argue
> the fact.
It is stunning that you can not read and comprehend the US Constitution.
> When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, conditions
> were different
Which is precisely why they made provisions for amending it.
This has not, to date, been done with respect to the electoral
process.
> But in this day and age, one man equals one vote is the cornerstone of
> democracy, and the electoral college system threatens that.
The Constitution is the cornerstone of this country. By the way, it
is a republic, not a pure democracy. Perhaps you can remember a
simple phrase "And to the Republic, for which it stands...."
> Whether
> Congress believe in it or not is not the point, though that oobviously
> eludes you.
You seem to believe that the law is whatever is convenient for you
personally at the time. Zippy the Pinhead for US Dictator has an
interesting ring to it.
Steve Zipser
ra...@thegateway.net says...
In a republic, you can have a dictatorship, in a democracy you cannot.
But then again, you are a repooplican, I forgot. You believe that some
folk are created better than others so their vote should count more.
Sorry to have bothered you, you can now go back to you EIB broadcast!
Randy
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...>
We haven't had a dictatorship in this country for well over 200 years
with that system. Doesn't appear to be a problem. Having a "president"
that decides the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document subject
to interpretation as need be" would yield exactly that.
> But then again, you are a repooplican, I forgot.
No, I am a libertarian. But, you are used to being wrong, so I
will not rub it in.
> You believe that some folk are created better than others so
> their vote should count more.
No, that is what Gore believes, with his "targeted" tax cuts.
When I hear or read "targeted" I think of snipers, not benefactors.
> Sorry to have bothered you, you can now go back to you EIB broadcast!
> Zip
It would appear that you know far too much about Limbaugh for a
supposed democrat. It took me a while to figure out what EIB
stood for, but looking at several of your other posts, all of
which center around your alter-ego Rush and checking his web
site I managed to put it together.
Perhaps you're just trolling. As a small-business owner
(disputes notwithstanding) it would make sense.
CL B
"I think it is antiquated, stupid, open to obvious corruption, and
ultimately stands in the way of true democracy."
As others have pointed out...Zippy, we aren't a true democracy. The
Founders were well aware of the dangers of having a government run by
"majority rule"...and that is why the word democratic or democracy
doesn't appear once in the Constitution. On the other hand, the word
Republican does appear...to desribe the type of government we do have.
I suggest you take a look at the Federalist Papers and the writings of
Hamilton, Madison and Jay to get a clearer understanding of our
Constitution.
CL B
"In a republic, you can have a dictatorship, in a democracy you cannot."
You sound like an idiot. It is more possible to have a dictator in a
democracy...the majority has the power to make it so. We are not only a
Republic, but we are a Constitutional form of government. That
Constitution makes it impossible to have a dictator...as it is written
currently. Of course, following your logic, "the majority" could
eventually change that to.
CL B
"In Communisim, the state runs industry
In Fascism, Industry runs the state"
I think Hitler and the Nazi's might have a dispute with this definition.
Afterall, Hitler..or the State, nationalized all industry for the
"State's" war effort. Remember, the Nazi Party was originally the
National Socialists Workers Party. And while there may be theoretical
differences between the two, the end result is usually the same...those
who control the state, will also control the industry. When one looks
at the history of Communism, it usually had its beginnings with some
sort of labor or workers movement against the state.
CL B
One of the most prophetic writings I read was from an Engish historian
named Alexander Frazier Tytler, who said (paraphrasing)...
"A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the people discover that they can vote themselves the
largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the MAJORITY
always votes for the candidate who promises them the most benefits from
the public treasury with the reult being that a democracy always
collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
While Tytler places the blame for democracies failure with the majority,
he probably didn't take into account the level of pandering that some
politicians would engage in, by blatantly offering the treasury to the
populous. In other words, your so called democracy poses a greater
threat to our current form of government.
Steve Zipser
cl...@webtv.net says...
>
> "I think it is antiquated, stupid, open to obvious corruption, and
> ultimately stands in the way of true democracy."
>
> As others have pointed out...Zippy, we aren't a true democracy.
I am well aware of that - but it is the ideal and the only fair way to
run a government.
> Founders were well aware of the dangers of having a government run by
> "majority rule"...and that is why the word democratic or democracy
> doesn't appear once in the Constitution.
Actually, I wasa politttical science and pre law major in college, and
worked for two congressmen (Dick Ottinger and Ogden Reid) and one senator
(Robert F Kennedy). The founding fathers didn't give a shit for the
dangers of majority rule, it was the only way they could compromise at
the time to get all the clonoies to join the union.
> On the other hand, the word
> Republican does appear...to desribe the type of government we do have.
> I suggest you take a look at the Federalist Papers and the writings of
> Hamilton, Madison and Jay to get a clearer understanding of our
> Constitution.
I am far more familiar with them than you are. My point stands. One man
= on vote is the only fair system of rule.
Cheers
Zip
--
Steve Zipser
cl...@webtv.net says...
>
> "In a republic, you can have a dictatorship, in a democracy you cannot."
>
> You sound like an idiot. It is more possible to have a dictator in a
> democracy...the majority has the power to make it so.
I am sorry - but you are dead wrong. In this country, 535 people have
the ability to choose a leader against the wishes of two hundred million.
I do not claim that will ever happen (chances are better that it will
happen than your phony claim of a majority subjugating a minority!) you
dummy!
> We are not only a Republic, but we are a Constitutional form of government.
No shit, Sherlocke.
> That Constitution makes it impossible to have a dictator.
Correct - it is the checks and balances and they work equally well
whether we have a president chosen by the entire population or by 535
power brokers ;-) You really ought to think about your own arguments!
> currently. Of course, following your logic, "the majority" could
> eventually change that to.
Not even remotely so - since it is written into law what percentage of
either the states or congress must pass it into law. You are dead wrong,
AGAIN!
Steve Zipser
> In Fascism, Industry runs the state"
>
> I think Hitler and the Nazi's might have a dispute with this definition.
> Afterall, Hitler..or the State, nationalized all industry for the
> "State's" war effort
Actually, Hitler had the full support of the owners of BMW and Benz and
Messcerschmidt and Fockwulf and so on and so on - the ultra right wing
Bavarian Barons of industry were marching with him goose step for goose
step. Guess yoiu didn't know that?
> Remember, the Nazi Party was originally the
> National Socialists Workers Party.
That is a name - a meaningless name. What is communist China called?
Peoples REPUBLIC (a wword you love) of China. What was the Soviet Union
called? The fact that Hitler, the biggest liar of all time called his
party socialist was a joke - it was anything but!
> And while there may be theoretical
> differences between the two, the end result is usually the same...those
> who control the state, will also control the industry.
On that we agree. You go round the circle far enough and you come out on
the other side.
Steve Zipser
Yo, dude, you are an idiot. The below escribes why we have three equal
branches with numerous checks and balances, it does not describe why we
have an electoral college.
I suggest you study American history dd during 1770 to 1790 and come back
when you have a clue.
Zip
In article <29931-3A...@storefull-112.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
cl...@webtv.net says...
--
Randy
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> I suggest you study American history dd during 1770 to 1790 and come back
> when you have a clue.
Practice what you preach Zip. Perhaps if you actually READ history,
instead of getting it from Biography or the DNC Newsletter, you
wouldn't make a fool of yourself on such a regular basis. Why
not get a copy of the Federalist Papers (available at Amazon and
almost any book outlet you can imagine) and READ it. Then, if
you don't comprehend it, go to a local college and ask a history
professor to help you grok the parts that do not make sense to you
or use antiquated English phrases that may confuse you.
Randy
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> Actually, I wasa politttical science and pre law major in college, and
> worked for two congressmen (Dick Ottinger and Ogden Reid) and one senator
> (Robert F Kennedy). The founding fathers didn't give a shit for the
> dangers of majority rule, it was the only way they could compromise at
> the time to get all the clonoies to join the union.
Your professors must be truly embarrassed.
> My point stands. One man = on vote is the only fair system of rule.
> Cheers
> Zip
What happens when 51% of the population decides that the other
49% should give them all their money while the majority sits
at home and watches Designing Women reruns? oops, so much for
that ideal political system.
Steve Zipser
ra...@thegateway.net says...
> What happens when 51% of the population decides that the other
> 49% should give them all their money while the majority sits
> at home and watches Designing Women reruns?
I guess you forgot about congress and the supreme court, you dumb fuck!
Will Briggs
into childish name-calling. Since congress is also elected by the people,
and the Supreme Court is selected by the President and approved by congress,
the point still stands - majority rule can and is a dangerous thing.
-Will
"Steve Zipser" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.147b122b8...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
Steve Zipser
says...
> I hate to see what could have, and was, an interesting argument degenerate
> into childish name-calling. Since congress is also elected by the people,
> and the Supreme Court is selected by the President and approved by congress,
> the point still stands - majority rule can and is a dangerous thing.
>
> -Will
I disagree. For choosing the president it is the only fair method. Why
should one person's vote count for more than anothers? Who determines
who's vote is more important?
We already have those checks in place, Will. It is called the United
States SENATE, where each state has an equal vote. The executive branch
cannot make laws - only the legislature can do that, so all your majority
mob arguments are so much hogwash!
The executive branch can introduce legislation, it can sign it into law,
but it is congress that makes the laws of the land, and the checks and
balances are already in place! Try again with a decent argument!
Besides, this is not a dictatorial state and will never become one.
Cheers
Zip
> "Steve Zipser" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.147b122b8...@news.mco.bellsouth.net...
> > In article <MPG.147a8d78d...@news.thegateway.net>,
> > ra...@thegateway.net says...
> > > What happens when 51% of the population decides that the other
> > > 49% should give them all their money while the majority sits
> > > at home and watches Designing Women reruns?
> >
> > I guess you forgot about congress and the supreme court, you dumb fuck!
>
>
>
--
Randy
cited author.]
In article <MPG.147b122b8...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>,
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> In article <MPG.147a8d78d...@news.thegateway.net>,
> ra...@thegateway.net says...
> > What happens when 51% of the population decides that the other
> > 49% should give them all their money while the majority sits
> > at home and watches Designing Women reruns?
>
> I guess you forgot about congress and the supreme court, you dumb fuck!
>
No I did not, you foul mouthed, mischievous hellion. The Congress is
elected BY THE MAJORITY, the same bunch we are talking about. The
President, elected by this SAME MAJORITY appoints Supreme Court
justices. Perhaps it would take a few extra years, but it will still
eventually wind up completely owned by the majority.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, but perhaps someone smarter
than a audio salesman, to figure that one out.
Randy
says...
> * "CL" == CL B <cl...@webtv.net> writes:
>
> > I think Hitler and the Nazi's might have a dispute with this
> > definition.
>
You misunderstand the law. This position is actually within the
historical context of Hitler, not just calling someone a Nazi.
Steve Zipser
> > I guess you forgot about congress and the supreme court, you dumb fuck!
> No I did not, you foul mouthed, mischievous hellion. The
> Congress is elected BY THE MAJORITY, the same bunch we are talking about.
First, I apologize for using the word fuck, but not the word DUMB! I was
right! You are an idiot! Congress is made of two houses, remember, and
the Senate represents states - it has nothing to do with a majority. You
could have 70 million vote for senators in 10 states and still not have a
majority of the seats in the senate, even though 70 mil would represent a
huge majority of voters!
Why is it only Repooplicans are for the electoral college? Because they
are a minority that wants to maintain control and the only thing worse
than majority rule is minority rule.
> > The President, elected by this SAME MAJORITY appoints
> Supreme Court justices.
Sorry - he occasionally gets to NOMINATE a supreme court justice, and
remember - they have the job for life, you understand what appointed for
life, means? Oh, BTW it is The CONGRESS that approves the nomination.
Remember? The same congress that includes the senate that has nothing to
do with majority rule!
> Perhaps it would take a few extra years, but it will still
> eventually wind up completely owned by the majority.
It never has and it never will and it has nothing to do with the
electoral college! Try a different rightwing goose step ;-)
Zip
Randy
says...
> * "Randy" == Randy <ra...@thegateway.net> writes:
>
> >> I think Hitler and the Nazi's might have a dispute with this >
> >> definition.
>
> >> Godwin's law invoked.
>
> > You misunderstand the law.
>
>
> Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
> the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches
> one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that
> thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost
> whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically
> guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those
> groups.
Let's try this again. The point was that this discussion was
directly ABOUT Nazi germany, not accusing someone of being
like a Nazi, or like Hitler. At any rate, it's not worth
arguing about. You will also know that the "practical guarantee"
of the thread ending never works in RAO or here.
Randy
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> First, I apologize for using the word fuck, but not the word DUMB! I was
> right! You are an idiot! Congress is made of two houses, remember, and
> the Senate represents states - it has nothing to do with a majority.
Sigh. Ok, in response to your ingenuous statement, I'll respond in kind
just for fun. I can now understand how people in Florida can fail to
fill out a ballot properly, if you are a representative sample. (Or at
least claim they did at the prompting of bribery by a party sworn to
give money to them if elected). Surprisingly, this was predicted long
ago, note:
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
bribe the people with their own money." - Alexis de Tocqueville
You seem to be focusing on majority in terms of POPULATION, independent of
political ideology. Senators are also elected, within a state, by a
majority vote. You point is only valid if the majority nationwide is
concentrated in a few states, rather than distributed roughly evenly
nationwide. The results of the last election could lead you into thinking
that way. However, it is far from the only possible outcome. News reports
indicate that women are already in the majority and growing slowly as a
percentage of the US population. As such, they could decide that
"turnabout is fair play" and decide to elect only female candidates for
public office, include President, House and Senate. Once that is done,
they could eventually wind up with only women on the Supreme Court. Once
that is concluded, they could then amend the Constitution to make it
illegal for men to vote at all. That is what majority (mob) rule can
be. Unless there are a large number of states with more men than women
in them (unlikely), it could happen. That is an extreme case, not meant
to be a realistic example. Even so, it should be clear that the Senate
guarantees no protection from this type of activity unless the effort
is concentrated in a few states instead of spread out nationally.
> You
> could have 70 million vote for senators in 10 states and still not have a
> majority of the seats in the senate, even though 70 mil would represent a
> huge majority of voters!
True, but inconsequential. See above.
> Why is it only Repooplicans are for the electoral college? Because they
> are a minority that wants to maintain control and the only thing worse
> than majority rule is minority rule.
>
> > > The President, elected by this SAME MAJORITY appoints
> > Supreme Court justices.
>
> Sorry - he occasionally gets to NOMINATE a supreme court justice, and
> remember - they have the job for life, you understand what appointed for
> life, means? Oh, BTW it is The CONGRESS that approves the nomination.
> Remember? The same congress that includes the senate that has nothing to
> do with majority rule!
>
> > Perhaps it would take a few extra years, but it will still
> > eventually wind up completely owned by the majority.
>
> It never has and it never will and it has nothing to do with the
> electoral college! Try a different rightwing goose step ;-)
> Zip
>
>
Todd Fatheree
> should one person's vote count for more than anothers? Who determines
> who's vote is more important?
>
> We already have those checks in place, Will. It is called the United
> States SENATE, where each state has an equal vote. The executive branch
> cannot make laws - only the legislature can do that, so all your majority
> mob arguments are so much hogwash!
>
> The executive branch can introduce legislation, it can sign it into law,
> but it is congress that makes the laws of the land, and the checks and
> balances are already in place! Try again with a decent argument!
>
> Besides, this is not a dictatorial state and will never become one.
> Cheers
> Zip
Well, I don't know squat about home theater, but since no one here knows
what an on-topic post is, I'll chime in.
Before the Western states became states, one of the things they were worried
about was being run over roughshod by the more populous states. However,
with the electoral college in place, that worry was placated. There is more
to the Presidency than signing bills into law. This man is our
Commander-in-Chief, as well as our voice to the rest of the world. To
insinuate that anything he does can be checked by Congress doesn't quite hit
the point.
You also mention the Senate, which I had been thinking about earlier today.
If we carry your argument a step further, why should Idaho get the same
number of Senators as New York? If majority rules, why have a Senate at
all? I know there is this pesky detail about the Constitution and all, but
that was written by a bunch of guys a couple of hundred years ago. They
couldn't possibly understand the country today.
Finally, it's pretty pointless to have this discussion anyway, except for
the purpose of having a philosophical discussion. Twenty-six states have
it better now than they would under a popular vote only system. In order to
do it, it obviously takes an amendment. Assuming it makes it through the
House and Senate (doubtful), no fewer than thirteen of those twenty-six
states would have to vote for having less power to decide a presidential
election than they do now.
Steve Zipser
In article <f4hQ5.169$Qe1.34117@elnws01>, fath...@NOmediaoneSPAM.net
says...
> Well, I don't know squat about home theater, but since no one here knows
> what an on-topic post is, I'll chime in.
Heh heh! There is no home theater in a dictatorship, look at it that
way!
> Before the Western states became states, one of the things they were worried
> about was being run over roughshod by the more populous states.
You meant, I am certain, the smaller, less populous of the original 13
colonies - that had nothing to do with western anything, if you look at a
map of those colonies. The western states added later were
inconsequential to this decision.
The intent of the electoral college was so that the electoral college
(the voting representatives) could get to hear and know all the
candidates. This can be read by any of you (like Randy and Will) if you
bothered to study American constitutional history at all.
It was the intent of the continental congress and the founding fathers
that the two house system be the actual "check and balance" for a fair
system - in addition to dividing the government into three equal but
distinctly separate bodies.
> with the electoral college in place, that worry was placated.
See above - you are dead wrong.
> There is more to the Presidency than signing bills into law.
Wow, what a brilliant observation! I doubt that anyone here discussing
these issues failed to acknowledge or realize that.
> This man is our Commander-in-Chief, as well as our voice to the rest of
> the world.
But he does NOT have the power to declare war, and his descretionary
power to use the military is limited by Congress - especially after the
Viet Nam fiasco.
> to insinuate that anything he does can be checked by Congress doesn't quite hit
> the point.
True, the president can also be checked by the Supreme Court - AND by the
voting population which is why the terms are only four years and only two
terms to a president ;-)
> You also mention the Senate, which I had been thinking about earlier today.
> If we carry your argument a step further, why should Idaho get the same
> number of Senators as New York?
Because THIS is the protection for the minority that the founding
fathers intended!! YOU HAVE EXACTLY STATED THE CORRECTNESS OF MY
ARGUMENT! THANK YOU!!!! This protection does NOT lie with an antiquted
Electoral College system!
> If majority rules, why have a Senate at all?
Because THIS is where the check and balance for majority rules is at!
> I know there is this pesky detail about the Constitution and all, but
> that was written by a bunch of guys a couple of hundred years ago. They
> couldn't possibly understand the country today.
This is absolutely true. Which is why there are twenty some odd
amendments to the constitution, along with hundreds of decisions by the
supreme court which detail how the laws are interpreted as time goes on!
> Finally, it's pretty pointless to have this discussion anyway, except for
> the purpose of having a philosophical discussion.
The discussion is not pointless. The discussion is about the very fabric
of our freedom.
> Twenty-six states have
> it better now than they would under a popular vote only system. In order to
> do it, it obviously takes an amendment. Assuming it makes it through the
> House and Senate (doubtful), no fewer than thirteen of those twenty-six
> states would have to vote for having less power to decide a presidential
> election than they do now.
After thiscurrent presidential election fiasco, it has a better than ever
chance of passing - Trent Lott has stated that he is going to go full
bore to eradicate this silly antiquated system since it is blatantly
unfair. After this latest fiasco, can there be any doubt about its
uselessness?
Cheers
Zip
Randy
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> But he does NOT have the power to declare war, and his descretionary
> power to use the military is limited by Congress - especially after the
> Viet Nam fiasco.
Care to tell us about the war power act, and "executive orders" and how
they are restrained by the system of checks and balances? For extra
credit, how are "executive orders" constitutional?
Zip
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the
framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the
collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or
into situations where
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the
circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in
such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided
that the Congress shall have the
power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not
only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in
the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer
thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United
States, its territories or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
possessions, or its armed forces.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CONSULTATION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before
introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly
with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in
hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States
Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped
for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply,
replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed
Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction
took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may
request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with
respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States
Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into
any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President
shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such
hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status
of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of
such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the
Congress less often than once every six months.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
SEC. 5. (a)
Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore
of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate
action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine
die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the
Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent
of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the
President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and
take appropriate action pursuant to this section.
SEC. 5. (b)
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be
submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President
shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect to which
such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of
United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period,
or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the
United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an
additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the
Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the
safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such
armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such
forces.
SEC. 5. (c)
Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces
are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its
possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific
statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if
the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL
SEC. 6. (a)
Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least
thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified
in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint
resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than
twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period
specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by
the yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (b)
Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business
of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate
shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and
shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House
shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 6. (c)
Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the
committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported
out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the
sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so
reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and
shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported,
unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC 6. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with
respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall
be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a
report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar
days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section
5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they
shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of
conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the
consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses
not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
SEC. 7. (a)
Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least
thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified
in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be
reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within
fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the
yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (b)
Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of
the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall
be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be
voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall
otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (c)
Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the
committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported
out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen
calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House
and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported,
unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
SEC. 7. (d)
In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with
respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be
promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a
report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days
after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference.
Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of
conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the
consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses
not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In
the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall
report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a)
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1)
from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the
enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in
any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such
situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2)
from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is
implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of
United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and
stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization
within the meaning of this joint resolution.
SEC. 8. (b)
Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further
specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed
Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or
more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military
commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint
resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified
by the United States prior to such date.
SEC 8. (c)
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United
States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces
to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the
regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government
when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat
that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
SEC. 8. (d)
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1)
is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the
President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2)
shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect
to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into
situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this
joint resolution.
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE
SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint
resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its
enactment.
CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 7, 1973.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution
(H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of
Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States
with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it
originated, it was
Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of
Representatives agreeing to pass the same.
Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of
Representatives.
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 7, 1973
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res.
542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and
the President", returned by the President of the United States with his
objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was
Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators
present having voted in the affirmative.
Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.
Acknowledgments
This file obtained from byrd.mu.wvnet.edu
Contributed by: "Andrew M. Ross" <ar...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
"Randy" <ra...@thegateway.net> wrote in message
news:<MPG.147b6706d...@news.thegateway.net>...
Steve Zipser
Heritage Lecture No. 529
The Heritage Foundation Lectures and Seminars
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
FIXING THE WAR POWERS ACT
Expansion of remarks (at a Heritage Foundation symposium on May 22, 1995
by Ronald D. Rotunda) by Albert E. Jenner Professor of Law, University of
Illinois College of Law.
In 1973, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution over President
Nixon's veto.1 Supporters viewed the law2 as an effort to prevent another
Vietnam, while opponents saw it as an unconstitutional effort to restrict
the Commander in Chief while not achieving its well-intentioned goals.3
The law is now more than 21 years old. Like a young child growing up, it
has reached its majority. Since then, liberals, conservatives,
Republicans, and Democrats have all attacked the law. Former Senate
Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME), for example, has complained that
the law simply "has not worked." It "potentially undermines our ability
to effectively defend our national interests" and "unduly restricts the
authority granted by the Constitution to the President as Commander-in-
Chief."4 Former President Ford agrees, calling the law both
"unconstitutional" and "impractical."5 Presidents of both parties have
been accused of ignoring it.6 With a pedigree like that, now is a good
time to reevaluate the resolution.
Applicability of the War Powers Resolution The coverage of the War Powers
Resolution is broad, encompassing essentially every situation involving
combat troops. Like most laws, it is written in the style of the Internal
Revenue Code or the Treaty of Westphalia. Its intricate prose states
that, unless there has been a declaration of war, the law applies to
every case where the President introduces "United States Armed Forces
into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the
continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations."7 In
other words, the law applies to virtually everything.
Declarations of War. The exception for declarations of war means, in
effect, that there are no exceptions, because no major power has declared
war since World War II. Of course, the intervening years have witnessed
major undeclared wars (the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War
are obvious examples), as well as relatively minor ones (e.g., Panama,
Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia).
While our Constitution provides that only Congress can "declare war," the
framers of our Constitution specifically rejected a proposal that would
give to Congress the power to "make" war.8 Instead, the framers made the
President the Commander in Chief, and the decision to seek a declaration
of war became a political question for Congress to resolve. A declaration
is an escalation of the war effort; in only a few circumstances has
Congress taken that symbolic step. It is too late in our history to argue
that there can be no war unless the war is officially "declared." Since
our Declaration of Independence, our country has been in about 200 armed
conflicts, while we have declared war only seven times. Not even the
Civil War, the bloodiest in our history, was a declared war.9
Situations that Develop into Hostilities. The War Powers Resolution also
applies to "the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such
situations." Thus, if U.S. troops are already stationed in an area where
there are no imminent hostilities, but then we are attacked, we have a
situation where there is the "continued use of such forces in hostilities
or in such situations."
In short, the War Powers Resolution applies to everything that involves
hostilities or that develops into hostilities. In our uncertain world,
that covers a great deal.
When the President Can Use Combat Troops Short of a Declaration of War
Three major parts of the War Powers Resolution merit specific emphasis.
First, there is section 1541(c), entitled "Presidential Executive Power
as Commander In Chief; Limitation." It states that the President's
constitutional power to introduce U.S. combat troops is limited to only
three circumstances: "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory
authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the
United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."10
This section provides that the President is not allowed to send U.S.
troops into combat unless Congress specifically gives advance approval;
the only exception is if the President is responding to a national
emergency created by an attack on U.S. territory or on U.S. armed
forces.11 Even then, the President must report to Congress immediately
and then "terminate any use" of the troops within 60 days unless Congress
specifically approves of further action.12
Our history demonstrates that there are many other situations where
Presidents have the constitutional authority to act. For example, the
President may use the military to rescue U.S. citizens abroad, to rescue
foreign nationals when that directly facilitates the rescue of our
citizens abroad, to protect U.S. embassies abroad, to implement a cease-
fire involving the United States, or to carry out the security
commitments in a treaty.13 The War Powers Resolution, oddly enough, does
not even include the right of the President to deter an imminent attack
on the United States. Section 1541(c) only covers the situation where
there has been an actual attack! Professor John Hart Ely admits that "it
truly is impossible to predict and specify all the possible situations in
which the president will need to act to protect the nation's security
before he has time to obtain congressional authorization."14
Over the years Presidents have justified military action without the
specific consent of Congress, relying on various theories not found in
the War Powers Act.15 President Roosevelt sent troops to Iceland and
Greenland in 1940, although federal legislation appeared to forbid it.16
President Johnson initially justified sending Marines to the Dominican
Republic to protect U.S. citizens; later Johnson relied on the Rio
Treaty. President Clinton involved the military in Haiti without seeking
congressional approval.
After the enactment of the War Powers Resolution, Presidents have simply
ignored the strict limits of this section, as illustrated by incidents
such as the Mayaguez rescue and the invasion of Grenada. Moreover, the
American people (particularly our citizens abroad) would not want a
President to follow this section: To do that would assure unfriendly
governments and terrorists that American embassy personnel, tourists, and
other American nationals abroad are all fair game, unprotected by the
world's only superpower. This section should simply be repealed.17
The Reporting Obligation
Various sections of the law impose specific reporting obligations on the
President. In general, the "President in every possible instance shall
consult with Congress before" introducing troops into imminent
hostilities and shall also consult with Congress regularly after the
introduction of combat troops.18 The President must also submit a
detailed written report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate within 48 hours after the
introduction of combat troops.19
In a democracy, it is essential that the President consult with Congress
and the American people and report what he is doing. If the American
people are being asked to send their sons and daughters into combat, the
President should honestly explain why. Granted, there will be some
circumstances when it may be more difficult to report to particular
congressional leaders. President Ford, in referring to the evacuation of
Danang in April 1975, illustrated the problem:
Congress was in a congressional Easter recess. Not one member of the key
bipartisan leaders of Congress was in Washington. [H]ere is where we
found the leaders of Congress. Two were in Mexico. Three were in Greece.
One was in the Middle East. One was in Europe, and two were in the
People's Republic of China. The rest were found in 12 widely scattered
States of the Union.20
On the other hand, the law does not demand the impossible. The
requirement of prior consultation only applies if it is "possible" to do
so.21 The requirement of subsequent consultation is similar. The law only
obligates the President to consult "regularly with Congress" while our
armed forces are in combat situations.22 After he introduces troops, he
must submit, within 48 hours, a written report to the House Speaker and
the Senate President Pro Tempore explaining why he introduced the
military, what authorized him to do so, and what is his estimate of the
scope and duration of hostilities.23
This basic principle is a sound one. The President has the
responsibility, in any democracy, to justify his actions to the American
people in a candid way. Many of the explanations of our Vietnam policy
were not candid, as Robert S. McNamara's recent memoirs acknowledged.24
Automatic Withdrawal of U.S. Troops and the Legislative Veto
Section 1544(b) of the War Powers Resolution requires that "the President
shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" at the end of the
60-day period unless Congress has either declared war or enacted a law
specifically authorizing the use of this force.25 In short, if Congress
does nothing, within 60 days (or sometimes 90 days), the President must
withdraw the troops. As one supporter of the War Powers Resolution
explains this provision, "the president's authority to act in emergencies
simply runs out in 60 days if Congress does nothing."26
Presidents and Congress have responded to this section by simply ignoring
it. (Congress, for example, did not think that the 60-day clock should
start running during the naval war against Iran in 1987-1988.27) Yet, its
existence remains important. The inelegantly phrased language appears to
give the President carte blanche authority for two months without any
serious oversight.28 It also allows the executive and legislative
branches to blame each other for failure of will, for exercise of
judgement. It obscures blame and muddies responsibility. It is better for
people to know where the responsibility lies. Then we will know whom to
blame, and to whom we should give kudos.
If section 1544(b) were repealed, that would not prevent Congress from
making known its view. On the contrary, Congress has always had the power
to pass a concurrent resolution indicating its position on a matter. A
concurrent resolution is not a law, and thus not subject to presidential
veto. While this resolution does not legally bind the President, that
does not make it irrelevant. If the President decided to ignore such a
resolution, the people would know exactly whom to blame (or to praise)
for the involvement of American combat troops. And Congress would make
its will known by doing something, rather than by doing nothing. Everyone
in Congress would have to stand up and be counted.
Section 1544(c) goes beyond the prior section and creates what is known
as a legislative veto. It provides that, notwithstanding the previous
section, if both houses of Congress, by concurrent resolution, direct
that the troops should be removed, the President must do so. This
resolution, unlike a normal law, is not subject to presidential veto.
Congress has always had the power to impose its will on the President by
using its spending power to enact a law to limit presidential action, but
a spending law would be subject to presidential veto. Section 1544(c)
declares that it is not subject to veto but (unlike a normal concurrent
resolution) must be treated the same as a statute.
Section 1544(c) is known as a legislative veto because it gives Congress
the right to veto presidential action. As such, scholars have concluded
that it is unconstitutional ever since INS v. Chadha,29 a 1983 case that
invalidated all legislative vetoes.30 While Professor John Hart Ely
argues that section 1544(c) is constitutional,31 even Professor Laurence
Tribe admits that this section is unconstitutional.32 The only question
is whether the existence of this unconstitutional section infects the
entire resolution, as some commentators have suggested.33
The Peace Powers Act of 1995
The constitutional and policy problems with the War Powers Resolution,
and its apparent irrelevance to military hostilities since its enactment,
have caused commentators to call for its repeal. That does not mean,
however, that it should be replaced with a vacuum. People do want to
avoid another Vietnam; they do want to have Congress involved; and they
do want to control foreign adventurism by a President too quick to spill
American blood.
Senator Dole (R-KS) and several other Senators have introduced S. 5, the
Peace Powers Act of 1995. This bill continues the basic reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution. It mandates that the President
"in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before
introducing" American forces into imminent involvement in hostilities.34
The proposed law also requires that the President submit a written report
to the House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tempore within 48 hours
after introducing or substantially increasing armed forces into a hostile
situation. This written report must explain why the introduction of armed
forces is necessary, what is the legislative and constitutional
authority, and what is the estimated scope and duration of involvement.
The President must also supply periodic reports and respond to additional
requests for information.35 H.R. 1111, which is a bill that Congressman
Dornan (R-CA) and others have introduced in the House, imposes similar
reporting obligations on the President.36
Both bills avoid the unconstitutional legislative veto; both avoid trying
to create a definitive list of circumstances where the President can use
the armed forces. (Recall that Professor Ely warned that it "truly is
impossible to predict and specify all the possible situations in which
the president will need to act to protect the nation's security before he
has time to obtain congressional authorization."37) Both avoid the
situation where Congress imposes its will by doing nothing, by failing to
take action.
And both avoid the problem of appearing to delegate to our court system
important questions of national policy. As Dr. Morton H. Halperin has
noted, one of the major problems with the War Powers Resolution is that
it has led to legal line drawing by the executive branch: "What you don't
need is a legal opinion from your lawyers that you have not yet crossed
some line drafted in a statute about how imminent the hostilities are."38
The proposed Peace Powers Act also deals with an issue that Congress
never really thought about in 1973: placing United States armed forces
under foreign command. The United States has joined United Nations
peacekeeping activities in the past, but it is only in recent times that
the President has chosen to place U.S. troops under foreign command. The
concern of many people is that foreign commanders may be more willing and
ready to spend American blood than to spend the blood of their own
countrymen. Just as many people are more generous when spending other
people's money, so also we might expect that foreign military commanders,
if given a choice of sending their own troops or American troops in
harm's way, will prefer to spill American blood.
Consequently, Section 5 of the proposed Peace Powers Act provides that
the President may not subordinate any element of the U.S. armed forces to
any foreign national unless Congress enacts a law authorizing the
subordination, or unless the President makes various findings and reports
to various congressional committees. Sections 7 and 8 provide for prior
congressional notification of proposed U.N. peacekeeping activities and
require the President to identify the source of funding for these
peacekeeping operations. These sections rely on Congress's spending
power, which historically has been very broad.39
These sections do not put the President in any straitjacket, but are
designed to assure candid consultation with Congress and the American
people in matters involving foreign hostilities. In a democracy the
people deserve no less. No overzealous President should involve the
United States in unnecessary hostilities while avoiding congressional
scrutiny. The War Powers Resolution has not worked; let us try something
better: the proposed Peace Powers Act.
Endnotes
87 Statutes at Large 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C.A. 1541-48.
Although called a "resolution" because, at the time, that term was
thought to be more "weighty and distinguished," it is real law, like any
other statute. It was enacted by both houses of Congress, vetoed by
President Nixon, and then passed over President Nixon's veto. See John
Hart Ely, War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and
Its Aftermath 115 (1993).
Had the War Powers Resolution been in effect at the time of the Vietnam
War, it probably would have made no difference, because President Johnson
would have complied with it. In 1964, Congress (by a vote of 504 to 2)
passed the Southeast Asian Resolution, authorizing the Vietnam War. In
1966, when we had more than 200,000 combat troops in Vietnam, when we all
knew that the United States was involved in more than a minor police
action, the Senate (92 to 5) voted to table an amendment to repeal the
Southeast Asian Resolution. Moore, The War Powers Resolution Is of
Doubtful Constitutionality, 70 A.B.A.J. 10, 12 (March 1984).
134 Congressional Record, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (No. 71, May 19, 1988),
at p. S6177.
Statement of President Gerald Ford, Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on War Powers of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. Hearing 100-1012, Sept. 15, 1988), at
161.
When the President does issue a report, he routinely states that he is
"conforming" to the resolution, rather than "complying" with it.
50 U.S.C.A. 1541(a) (emphasis added).
Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 313, 318-
19 (rev. ed., 1937).
R. Rotunda & J. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and
Procedure 6.9, at 528, & Appendix following 6.10, at 532-42 (West Pub.
Co., 2d ed., 1992).
50 U.S.C.A. 1541(c).
John Hart Ely agrees that this is what the section means. Ely, supra, at
p. 229. Any other interpretation leads to peculiar results, as Ely
explains. Id. at 229-30.
50 U.S.C.A. 1543; 1544(b).
Hearings on War Powers before the Subcommittee on International Security
and Scientific Affairs of the House Committee on International Relations,
94th Cong., 1st Sess., 90-91 (1975), testimony of Monroe Leigh, Legal
Adviser to the State Department.
Ely, supra, at 118 (footnote omitted).
See 1 Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law:
Substance and Procedure 6.10 (West Pub. Co., 2d ed., 1992), which
discusses various examples, including those discussed here.
Professor John Hart Ely, while flirting with an effort to make this
section enforceable in the courts, and conceding that his "instincts"
would make this section "operational," ultimately admits that it should
be repealed. Ely, supra, at 118-19.
50 U.S.C.A. 1542.
50 U.S.C.A. 1543(a)(2). The written report must explain why the President
introduced troops, the constitutional and legislative authority relied
on, and the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities.
1543(3)(A),(B), & (C).
Statement of President Gerald Ford, Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on War Powers of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. Hearing 100-1012, Sept. 15, 1988), at
161.
50 U.S.C.A. 1542.
50 U.S.C.A. 1542.
50 U.S.C.A. 1543(a)(3); see also 1543(b), (c) (dealing with periodic
reporting).
E.g., George Melloan, "McNamara's War? You've Got To Be Kidding," The
Wall Street Journal, April 17, 1995, at A13, col. 3-6 (midwest ed.).
The strictness of this law is illustrated by its narrow exceptions. It
allows the President to extend the time period by an additional 30 days
in certain circumstances and allows Congress to enact a statute to extend
the 60-day period. The law also does not apply if Congress "is physically
unable to meet," but only if it cannot meet for a specific reason: "as a
result of an armed attack upon the United States." 1544(b)(3). The
President cannot avoid the time limit by refusing to submit a report,
because this section also covers the case where a report is "required to
be submitted," even if not submitted.
Tipson, The War Powers Resolution Is Constitutional and Enforceable, 70
A.B.A.J. 10, 14 (March 1984). President Nixon complained that this
provision allowed Congress, "by doing nothing and sitting still," to make
foreign policy and restrict the President. Edward S. Corwin, The
President: Office and Powers, 1787-1984, at p. 300 (5th rev. ed., by
Randall W. Bland, Theodore T. Hindson, & Jack W. Peltason, 1984)
(footnote omitted), quoting Robert J. Sickels, The Presidency 128 (1980).
Ely, Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act That Worked, 88 Colum. L.
Rev. 1379, 1381-83 (1988). Congress knew exactly what was going on;
during this time period, on July 3, 1988, an American missile
accidentally downed a civilian Iranian airplane which entered what the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called "a war zone." None of this
was secret. Earlier, Iran planted mines that damaged a U.S. frigate, and
an Iranian missile boat fired a missile at a U.S. cruiser. The Iranian
missile missed its target, and U.S. missiles and bombs then destroyed the
Iranian boat.
Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1984, at p. 300
(5th rev. ed., by Randall W. Bland, Theodore T. Hindson, & Jack W.
Peltason, 1984).
462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983).
E.g., 1 Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional
Law: Substance and Procedure 6.13, at 551 (West Pub. Co., 2d ed., 1992).
Ely, War and Responsibility, supra, at 119.
Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 218 n. 25 (Foundation
Press, 2d ed., 1988), referring specifically to 1544(c).
Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1984, at p. 301
(5th rev. ed., by Randall W. Bland, Theodore T. Hindson, & Jack W.
Peltason, 1984): Chadha "clearly lays the ground for a serious
constitutional challenge to the entire resolution" (emphasis added).
Professor Ely expresses concern that Chadha "provides an excuse to
condemn the entire Resolution as 'unconstitutional.'" Ely, War and
Responsibility, supra, at 119 (emphasis added). The resolution, however,
contains a severability clause, 1548. On the other hand, one can argue
that 1544(c) is central to large parts of the resolution -- Ely calls it
part of a "package" that includes 1544(b) (emphasis in original) -- and
that may be why some commentators suggest that this provision infects and
invalidates the entire resolution.
S. 5, at 3.
S. 5, at 4.
H.R. 1111 (Mar. 2, 1995), a bill to clarify the war powers of Congress
and the President in the post-Cold War period.
Ely, War and Responsibility, supra, at 118 (footnote omitted).
Statement of Morton H. Halperin, ACLU, Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on War Powers of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. Hearing 100-1012, Sept. 20, 1988), at
223.
U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 1. See also Art. I, 8, cl. 12, which
authorizes Congress to raise and support armies, "but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
87 Statutes at Large 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C.A. 1541-48.
Although called a "resolution" because, at the time, that term was
thought to be more "weighty and distinguished," it is real law, like any
other statute. It was enacted by both houses of Congress, vetoed by
President Nixon, and then passed over President Nixon's veto. See John
Hart Ely, War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and
Its Aftermath 115 (1993).
Had the War Powers Resolution been in effect at the time of the Vietnam
War, it probably would have made no difference, because President Johnson
would have complied with it. In 1964, Congress (by a vote of 504 to 2)
passed the Southeast Asian Resolution, authorizing the Vietnam War. In
1966, when we had more than 200,000 combat troops in Vietnam, when we all
knew that the United States was involved in more than a minor police
action, the Senate (92 to 5) voted to table an amendment to repeal the
Southeast Asian Resolution. Moore, The War Powers Resolution Is of
Doubtful Constitutionality, 70 A.B.A.J. 10, 12 (March 1984).
134 Congressional Record, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (No. 71, May 19, 1988),
at p. S6177.
Statement of President Gerald Ford, Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on War Powers of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. Hearing 100-1012, Sept. 15, 1988), at
161.
When the President does issue a report, he routinely states that he is
"conforming" to the resolution, rather than "complying" with it.
50 U.S.C.A. 1541(a) (emphasis added).
2 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 313,
318-19 (rev. ed., 1937).
1 R. Rotunda & J. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and
Procedure 6.9, at 528, & Appendix following 6.10, at 532-42 (West Pub.
Co., 2d ed., 1992).
50 U.S.C.A. 1541(c).
John Hart Ely agrees that this is what the section means. Ely, supra, at
p. 229. Any other interpretation leads to peculiar results, as Ely
explains. Id. at 229-30.
50 U.S.C.A. 1543; 1544(b).
Hearings on War Powers before the Subcommittee on International Security
and Scientific Affairs of the House Committee on International Relations,
94th Cong., 1st Sess., 90-91 (1975), testimony of Monroe Leigh, Legal
Adviser to the State Department.
Ely, supra, at 118 (footnote omitted).
See 1 Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law:
Substance and Procedure 6.10 (West Pub. Co., 2d ed., 1992), which
discusses various examples, including those discussed here.
Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution 106 (1972).
Professor John Hart Ely, while flirting with an effort to make this
section enforceable in the courts, and conceding that his "instincts"
would make this section "operational," ultimately admits that it should
be repealed. Ely, supra, at 118-19.
50 U.S.C.A. 1542.
50 U.S.C.A. 1543(a)(2). The written report must explain why the President
introduced troops, the constitutional and legislative authority relied
on, and the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities.
1543(3)(A),(B), & (C).
Statement of President Gerald Ford, Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on War Powers of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. Hearing 100-1012, Sept. 15, 1988), at
161.
50 U.S.C.A. 1542.
50 U.S.C.A. 1542.
50 U.S.C.A. 1543(a)(3); see also 1543(b), (c) (dealing with periodic
reporting).
E.g., George Melloan, "McNamara's War? You've Got To Be Kidding," The
Wall Street Journal, April 17, 1995, at A13, col. 3-6 (midwest ed.).
The strictness of this law is illustrated by its narrow exceptions. It
allows the President to extend the time period by an additional 30 days
in certain circumstances and allows Congress to enact a statute to extend
the 60-day period. The law also does not apply if Congress "is physically
unable to meet," but only if it cannot meet for a specific reason: "as a
result of an armed attack upon the United States." 1544(b)(3). The
President cannot avoid the time limit by refusing to submit a report,
because this section also covers the case where a report is "required to
be submitted," even if not submitted.
Tipson, The War Powers Resolution Is Constitutional and Enforceable, 70
A.B.A.J. 10, 14 (March 1984). President Nixon complained that this
provision allowed Congress, "by doing nothing and sitting still," to make
foreign policy and restrict the President. Edward S. Corwin, The
President: Office and Powers, 1787-1984, at p. 300 (5th rev. ed., by
Randall W. Bland, Theodore T. Hindson, & Jack W. Peltason, 1984)
(footnote omitted), quoting Robert J. Sickels, The Presidency 128 (1980).
Ely, Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act That Worked, 88 Colum. L.
Rev. 1379, 1381-83 (1988). Congress knew exactly what was going on;
during this time period, on July 3, 1988, an American missile
accidentally downed a civilian Iranian airplane which entered what the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called "a war zone." None of this
was secret. Earlier, Iran planted mines that damaged a U.S. frigate, and
an Iranian missile boat fired a missile at a U.S. cruiser. The Iranian
missile missed its target, and U.S. missiles and bombs then destroyed the
Iranian boat.
Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1984, at p. 300
(5th rev. ed., by Randall W. Bland, Theodore T. Hindson, & Jack W.
Peltason, 1984).
462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983).
E.g., 1 Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional
Law: Substance and Procedure 6.13, at 551 (West Pub. Co., 2d ed., 1992).
Ely, War and Responsibility, supra, at 119.
Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 218 n. 25 (Foundation
Press, 2d ed., 1988), referring specifically to 1544(c).
Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1984, at p. 301
(5th rev. ed., by Randall W. Bland, Theodore T. Hindson, & Jack W.
Peltason, 1984): Chadha "clearly lays the ground for a serious
constitutional challenge to the entire resolution" (emphasis added).
Professor Ely expresses concern that Chadha "provides an excuse to
condemn the entire Resolution as 'unconstitutional.'" Ely, War and
Responsibility, supra, at 119 (emphasis added). The resolution, however,
contains a severability clause, 1548. On the other hand, one can argue
that 1544(c) is central to large parts of the resolution -- Ely calls it
part of a "package" that includes 1544(b) (emphasis in original) -- and
that may be why some commentators suggest that this provision infects and
invalidates the entire resolution.
S. 5, at 3.
S. 5, at 4.
H.R. 1111 (Mar. 2, 1995), a bill to clarify the war powers of Congress
and the President in the post-Cold War period.
Ely, War and Responsibility, supra, at 118 (footnote omitted).
Statement of Morton H. Halperin, ACLU, Hearings Before the Special
Subcommittee on War Powers of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. Hearing 100-1012, Sept. 20, 1988), at
223.
U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 1. See also Art. I, 8, cl. 12, which
authorizes Congress to raise and support armies, "but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Shaun9010
<opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote:
>in article 8FE8D7E20musi...@24.93.67.42, MusicMax at
>mRuEsMiOcVmEa!x...@bigfoot.com wrote on 11/11/00 12:24 PM:
>
>> Gore's ties to China and Occidental Petroleum make him possibly even more
>> corrupt than Clinton.
>
>Yeah, a couple hundred thousand bucks in Occidental shares (a company with a
>market value of about $8 billion) inherited from his father makes him
>corrupt. . .
>
>Only in the peabrain of a republican.
In 1995, on Vice President Gore's recommendation, the Clinton
Administration sold the federally administered Elk Hills oil reserves
to Occidental Petroleum for $3.65 billion. This constituted, according
to Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, "the largest
privatization of federal property in US history". At issue is not the
sale of federal land to the private sector, where it belongs in most
cases, but the appropriateness of selling oil that is kept in reserve
for military purposes. Occidental had contributed more than $470,000
to the Democratic Party. This included a check for $100,000 written
two days after Occidental chairman, Ray Irani, was a guest in the
Lincoln Bedroom. Gore received $35,550 directly. It is worth noting
that the left has traditionally accused the Republican Party of being
under the influence of big corporations and big oil. Obviously not so
in this case.
Gore's relationship with the oil behemoth goes back to his father, Al
Gore Sr., who, after a long and mutually beneficial relationship with
Occidental, was given a $500,000 per year there after leaving the US
Senate. Occidental Chairman, Armand Hammer, was quoted as saying that
he had Al Sr."In my back pocket". Occidental purchased mineral rich
land near the Gore farm in Tennessee, sold the land to Al Sr, and paid
the Gore family $20,000 per year for the mineral rights. The Vice
President still collects on this contract although another company now
owns it. Gore owns shares in Occidental worth up to $500,000.
Author Edward Jay Epstein, in Dossier-The Secret History of Armand
Hammer, documents the longstanding relationship between the Occidental
Chairman and every Soviet leader from Lenin to Gorbachev. Hammer's
father, Julius Hammer, was one of the founders of the American
Communist Party. The book further reveals the fact that Hammer lived
in the Soviet Union in the 1920's, financed Soviet espionage in the
US, and sold confiscated art for the Soviets at his New York gallery.
Make no mistake, Hammer was a Soviet spy and a traitor, no different
than Alger Hiss. Hammer's handling of confiscated Soviet art was no
different than the way Nazi Field Marshall Goring handled French art
confiscated from the Lourve in occupied Paris. Gore's family became
rich from their association with Armand Hammer and Occidental
Petroleum.
>
>
>Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
>Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
>Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
>Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
>Zippie SOCKPUPPETS http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
>
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." (Al Gore, CNN’s "Late Edition
with Wolf Blitzer," 3/9/99)
Ron
<fath...@NOmediaoneSPAM.net> wrote:
>> [....]
>Before the Western states became states, one of the things they were worried
>about was being run over roughshod by the more populous states. However,
>with the electoral college in place, that worry was placated.
Please explain how that follows. The number of electoral
votes accorded each state is a function of the size of its
population. Result: sparsely populated states can still be
'run over roughshod' by the more populous states.
-- Ron
Steve Zipser
ron***kill_spam_dead***a...@yahoo.com says...
Thanks Ron, for pointing out the obvious. The equalizer for the small
states the United STates Senate - 2 votes per state, no matter the
population.
Ron
<z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>In article <3a12f9fb...@news.concentric.net>,
>ron***kill_spam_dead***a...@yahoo.com says...
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:23:51 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
>> <fath...@NOmediaoneSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> [....]
>> >Before the Western states became states, one of the things they were worried
>> >about was being run over roughshod by the more populous states. However,
>> >with the electoral college in place, that worry was placated.
>>
>> Please explain how that follows. The number of electoral
>> votes accorded each state is a function of the size of its
>> population. Result: sparsely populated states can still be
>> 'run over roughshod' by the more populous states.
>
>Thanks Ron, for pointing out the obvious. The equalizer for the small
>states the United STates Senate - 2 votes per state, no matter the
>population.
Don't mention. But, weren't we talking about the Electral
college?
-- Ron