DescentBB

American Thinker wrote:If you thought that "one man, one vote" reflected the full flowering of representative democracy, think again. In the village of Port Chester, N.Y., just a few towns north of my locality in Westchester County, there is a new system. It's "one (minority) man, six votes" -- brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Department of Injustice and a lunkhead of a federal judge named Stephen Robinson.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/ ... _vote.html


Well where do I sign up to get MY 6 votes?

.

Bet51987 wrote:Really, this scheme visited upon Port Chester is just another example of liberal bigotry.

Liberal Bigotry? OMG! You're very own GOPSCOTUS already sold your vote (and mine) to the corporations. Individual votes never mattered anyway, but now I don't even have to make the effort to go to the voting booth anymore. And I won't.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ ... est-bidder

The next election will be a major republican victory in both house and senaate because no corporation is going to support a party that seeks to regulate business practices in the form of Wall St reform, Offshore drilling regulations, etc.

Republicans will promise a corporate paradise by removing any "liberal" regulations in exchange for their vote (and some pocket money). Wait and see.

Bee

Yea, you are right if you interpret the word "regulation" to fit your rhetoric that is.
So, using your definition of the word regulate Hugo Chavez is merely regulating businesses in Venezuela when he seizes them and declares the state the new operating authority!

Will Robinson wrote:So, using your definition of the word regulate Hugo Chavez is merely regulating businesses in Venezuela when he seizes them and declares the state the new operating authority!

I gave no definition but let me play too. I think your definition is "Drill baby drill" and we should "trust the oil companies"

Bee

Bee, how did the regulation work when the regulators came to congress and warned that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were headed for failure? How did those rascally republicans respond?
Oh....wait...it wasn't the republicans who rejected regulation was it?!?
I know! Maybe George Bush used a spell he learned from the Dark Lord Volder-Cheney and controlled their minds during that time!

Why do you insist on being such a toadie for the biggest group of liars who are responsible for at least half of all the problems we face today?

.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So, using your definition of the word regulate Hugo Chavez is merely regulating businesses in Venezuela when he seizes them and declares the state the new operating authority!

I gave no definition but let me play too. I think your definition is "Drill baby drill" and we should "trust the oil companies"

Bee

You falsely implied that democrats will lose elections next time because they favor regulation...
See my question and link just above for an example of how wrong your assertion is and just how culpable your preferred party actually is for the economic nightmare we face and they continue to run the economy into the gutter with your foolish support!

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Why do you insist on being such a toadie for the biggest group of liars who are responsible for at least half of all the problems we face today?

And why Will, do you support the other half of the group of crooks and liars. Are they better?

Bee

I don't Bee, I haven't voted for a republican since Clinton beat Bush Sr.

As usual your assumptions make you out for what you are...

.

This isn't the only case of this voting system being used. It's called 'cumulative voting'. Read under semiproportional methods in Wiki. It's meant to help with unequal voting power, but it's not normally used in municipal elections. Somebody wanted to help ameliorate the 'tyranny of the majority' vote in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

It's also being used to elect the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., the school board in Amarillo, Texas and the City Council in Peoria, Ill., so it's use is not unheard of.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:As usual your assumptions make you out for what you are...

I can't be sure where this is going so you win.

Bee

WAH?????
if you've got a point make it.
if you're sure of your point stand behind it.
if you're proven wrong on your point be adult enough to admit it.

don't tuck tail and run because you dont know where your rants or opposition to your rants are going to lead you. thats just being a Class 1 Troll

.

REALLY. we have the election handed to us. SWEET

But if that is so, is it possible that BP oil bought Obama the current Presidency? OR would it be even more likley to buy him the Presidency again in 2013 with our new endless corprate spending buffet. it does seem like Obama has been the prime choice for BP to give money to.

Or even worse could the fact that BP has Given Obama untold amounts of money caused the President to intentionally botch his handling of the Gulf spill?
but wait that really has nothing to do with uncapping corprate money for candidates now does it?

It's naieve and ignorant on your part to blame just the GOP for this countries ills because the Socialist party of America (since you insist on the childish party of no mantra) is every bit as much to blame for the mess we are in. and until you wake up and see that. you hurt yourself and any opinion you wish to voice.

While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.


BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/05 ... z0r9xeRWKJ

or maybe even this little tidbit

Imagine if Bush were president right now, and it was revealed that his chief of staff had lived rent-free in the home of one of BP’s consultants. Yeah, that might be something the MSM would report on. Andrew Malcom on the Rahm Emanuel’s BP bennies:

In case you were tempted to buy the faux Washington outrage at BP and its gulf oil spill in recent days, here’s a story that reveals a little-known corporate political connection and the quiet way the inner political circles intersect, protect and care for one another in the nation’s capital. And Chicago.

We already knew that BP and its folks were significant contributors to the record $750-million war chest of Barack Obama’s 2007-08 campaign.

Now, we learn the details of a connection of Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayoral wannabe, current Obama chief of staff, ex-representative, ex-Clinton money man and ex-Windy City political machine go-fer.

you havent had a real vote in this country in yours or my life time. you just havent figured it out yet

.

Bee wrote:The GOPSCOTUS decision to allow corporations to spend any amount of money to bolster the party of their choice gives the GOP the next election handed to them.

Hardly Bee, you and I both know that the distribution of wealth goes BOTH ways. Why do you pretend to be a Donkey Kong and support the liberal left?

Get over reading "talking points" and start reading period!

I blame everyone. But the party that will lose is the party that will regulate those who need to be regulated. Unless, you feel that no regulations are needed for the oil industry or Wall street. I'd be interested in a serious opinion from you about those regulations.

Nope I think there should be regulation. look at what happened to the housing market when Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd introduced legislation to deregulate them. it collapsed and was the major cause of our current recession.

funny lets use your logic. since it was a Dem that helped dereglate the housing industry. were the DNC buying the peoples votes by making it easier for them to purchase houses they couldn't afford???

I think the DNC will lose because of 2 major reason.
1.the American people, with the exception of those socialists that want handouts. realise that America cannot sustain this insane deficit spending that our government is currently doing
2.the American people see our current government taking over the Railroads, Mail, Auto industry, Banking Industry, Housing Industry and just watch this BP fiasco is the start of them taking over the Oil industry. which they will NEVER give back. plus they are now trying to control your internet. Valdimir Lenin + Hugo Chavez would be proud

CUDA wrote:you havent had a real vote in this country in yours or my life time. you just havent figured it out yet

I know that. I voted for the first time when I voted for Obama with a sense of self gratification that my vote meant at least a small something. However, the GOPSCOTUS decision (remember that vote was 5-4 right down party lines) pretty much removes that sensory mechanism so I have nothing worth driving to the polls for.

Bee

so let me get this right. you know that you had no vote. but you had gratification in not having that vote???

you poor thing. it's terrible how those 5 people on the SCOTUS have ruined your life. I'm sure that the 50 people in the Senate, the 435 in the Congress and the main one that you voted for in the White House had no impact on you at all