I backed up my statements with his statements that is not an ad-hominem attack.
Please quote and post all of this quotes that you believe make him a neo-nazi and then compare and contrast how those beliefs correlate with fascism and the political ideals of the Nazi party.
Except in this you have a revisionist neo-nazi on one side and a moderate, reasonable, well researched man on the other. For the record, HungryJoe is the reasonable one in this.
The one who throws the personal attacks first is the reasonable one? Look back over the threads where Joe and I have argued and tell me how often he throws the first personal attack and how often I do. so I did not go to college, that may make me ignorant of things but that does not make me stupid.
Steve has advocated work camps for the poor
I did not advocate them. I expressed an interest in some form of training system and then went on to list why the type I thought up would not work.
, blatantly stated that only Black people and Hispanics have problems like teen pregnancy, poor education, etc. (He also stated that those are exclusively inner-city problems... I mean have you been to any white rural towns, I assure you they face those same issues.)
The discussion was focused on problems with failing inner city schools. Any mention of things not-related to inner city schools is just a tangent not worth following and promptly ignored. Further the points I made in that discussion were points made by Bill Cosby himself at an NAACP meeting. Is he a neo-nazi too for suggesting that one of the root problems with inner city blacks is the destruction of the two-parent black family?
Furthermore, he continually bashes the democratic party, but then points to Obama as having good solutions to problems like poverty.
So, Obama = Democratic party? Do all Democrats walk in lockstep and share one brain?
This craven man even goes so far as to assume that everyone that moves up to his tax bracket will suddenly loose their compassion and become a "conservative" like him.
Lose their compassion? I can't even respond to that as it has no basis in fact.
(BTW, since when did "conservative" mean exploding the deficit by generating unnecessary wars. Anyone that is unreasonable enough as to buy into his opinion has the freedom to make the stupid choice. This man who refuses to provide any basis for his claims, and relies on taunts, cyclical reasoning, and rhetoric to make his points.
Conservative does not mean what you stated. No more than liberal means you have to walk up to pregnant woman and offer them free abortion cards. Conservatism is all about making the people around you self-sufficient so that they can rely on themselves and not have to be dependant on others.
In closing, if you feel any idea other than the ones you espouse or believe in are somehow not worthy of discussion or debate how do you ever expect to learn anything in life and grow as a person? If all your views are fixed and immutable you might as well just stay off the Internet because something will offend you no matter where you go. I believe in freedom. That includes the freedom to speak and the freedom to be wrong or fail. Do you believe in freedom of speech or would you prefer all those who hold an opinion different than yours be silenced?
I backed up my statements with his statements that is not an ad-hominem attack.
Please quote and post all of this quotes that you believe make him a neo-nazi and then compare and contrast how those beliefs correlate with fascism and the political ideals of the Nazi party.
His posts are in thsi thread, and I referenced them. I will not do a google search for neo-nazi theory, but in consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, you are correct, he is not a neo-nazi (as he focuses more on blacks and hispanics than the jews... therefore his closer to a skinhead mentality (which embraces some nazi ideas like labor camps, just for blacks-not jews).
His posts are in thsi thread, and I referenced them. I will not do a google search for neo-nazi theory, but in consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, you are correct, he is not a neo-nazi (as he focuses more on blacks and hispanics than the jews... therefore his closer to a skinhead mentality.
Fine, if you aren't going to do the research to back up your own claims, you are just as guilty in wallowing in your own pathetic ignorance. Get the fuck off my internets.
His posts are in thsi thread, and I referenced them. I will not do a google search for neo-nazi theory, but in consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, you are correct, he is not a neo-nazi (as he focuses more on blacks and hispanics than the jews... therefore his closer to a skinhead mentality.
Fine, if you aren't going to do the research to back up your own claims, you are just as guilty in wallowing in your own pathetic ignorance. Get the fuck off my internets.
I did do research. READ THE THREAD. Also, I am a 15 year member of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They provide definitions for each group they combat on their website.
I backed up my statements with his statements that is not an ad-hominem attack.
Please quote and post all of this quotes that you believe make him a neo-nazi and then compare and contrast how those beliefs correlate with fascism and the political ideals of the Nazi party.
His posts are in thsi thread, and I referenced them. I will not do a google search for neo-nazi theory, but in consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, you are correct, he is not a neo-nazi (as he focuses more on blacks and hispanics than the jews... therefore his closer to a skinhead mentality (which embraces some nazi ideas like labor camps, just for blacks-not jews).
One thread? You are going to base your opinion on a handful of posts out of my 3,752 posts on this forum?
I backed up my statements with his statements that is not an ad-hominem attack.
Please quote and post all of this quotes that you believe make him a neo-nazi and then compare and contrast how those beliefs correlate with fascism and the political ideals of the Nazi party.
His posts are in thsi thread, and I referenced them. I will not do a google search for neo-nazi theory, but in consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, you are correct, he is not a neo-nazi (as he focuses more on blacks and hispanics than the jews... therefore his closer to a skinhead mentality (which embraces some nazi ideas like labor camps, just for blacks-not jews).
One thread? You are going to base your opinion on a handful of posts out of my 3,752 posts on this forum?
What are you talking about? I am basisng it on your own statements. The fact that they coincide with some of the views of these hate groups isn't my fault.
His posts are in thsi thread, and I referenced them. I will not do a google search for neo-nazi theory, but in consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, you are correct, he is not a neo-nazi (as he focuses more on blacks and hispanics than the jews... therefore his closer to a skinhead mentality.
Fine, if you aren't going to do the research to back up your own claims, you are just as guilty in wallowing in your own pathetic ignorance. Get the fuck off my internets.
Why do you keep claiming I am ignorant. I am referencing HIS OWN STATEMENTS that are higher up in THIS THREAD. THAT IS CITING. If you don't want to read the thread, that is your lack of research, not mine. And this is everyone's internets (deal with it)! ^_^
I did do research. READ THE THREAD. Also, I am a 15 year member of theSouthern Poverty Law Center. They provide definitions for each group they combat on their website.
If you could link to their definitions page, it would be much appreciated. I tried searching for definitions, yet I could not find any and their website is hard to navigate.
I still want to you to explain to me why you think he is a neo-nazi with his quotes. You made the claim, it's time for you to back it up. Don't put the onus on me to support your claim.
Why do you keep claiming I am ignorant. I am referencing HIS OWN STATEMENTS that are higher up in THIS THREAD. THAT IS CITING. If you don't want to read the thread, that is your lack of research, not mine.
You have not shown which ones in particular, you have paraphrased. I need to see the exact statements you are talking about.
I did do research. READ THE THREAD. Also, I am a 15 year member of theSouthern Poverty Law Center. They provide definitions for each group they combat on their website.
If you could link to their definitions page, it would be much appreciated. I tried searching for definitions, yet I could not find any and their website is hard to navigate.
I still want to you to explain to me why you think he is a neo-nazi with his quotes. You made the claim, it's time for you to back it up. Don't put the onus on me to support your claim.
I am not putting the onus on you to support my claim. I am putting the onus on you to read the thread that you are taking part in. As for the webpage, under their list of hate groups they reference what each group believes, the major leaders, and where they are located.
I backed up my statements with his statements that is not an ad-hominem attack.
Please quote and post all of this quotes that you believe make him a neo-nazi and then compare and contrast how those beliefs correlate with fascism and the political ideals of the Nazi party.
His posts are in thsi thread, and I referenced them. I will not do a google search for neo-nazi theory, but in consulting the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, you are correct, he is not a neo-nazi (as he focuses more on blacks and hispanics than the jews... therefore his closer to a skinhead mentality (which embraces some nazi ideas like labor camps, just for blacks-not jews).
One thread? You are going to base your opinion on a handful of posts out of my 3,752 posts on this forum?
What are you talking about? I am basisng it on your own statements. The fact that they coincide with some of the views of these hate groups isn't my fault.
Here are some tables on distribution of the poor by race in the US. In 2006, 43.9% of those under the poverty level were white, 24.8% were black, 3.7% were Asian, and 25.4% were Hispanic. For the past 40 years, 25-30% of those below the poverty level have been black. The lowest percentage in the tables was in 2004, at 24.3%. Since 1999, the percentage of those below the poverty level that were Hispanic has been above 24%.
Here are some tables on the distribution of poverty within race groups in the US. In 2006, 8.2% of whites were poor, 24.3% of blacks were poor, 10.3% of Asians were poor, and 20.6% of Hispanics were poor. For the past 40 years, the number of blacks that are poor has been between a quarter and a third. At least 20% of the Hispanic population has been poor for the past 10 years, and for the 10 years before that the percentage never dropped below 25%.
If a person were to open labor camps for the poor, it would not be unreasonable to assume that half of those present would be either black or Hispanic.
Hereare some tables on distribution of the poor by race in the US. In 2006, 43.9% of those under the poverty level were white, 24.8% were black, 3.7% were Asian, and 25.4% were Hispanic. For the past 40 years, 25-30% of those below the poverty level have been black. The lowest percentage in the tables was in 2004, at 24.3%. Since 1999, the percentage of those below the poverty level that were Hispanic has been above 24%.
Hereare some tables on the distribution of poverty within race groups in the US. In 2006, 8.2% of whites were poor, 24.3% of blacks were poor, 10.3% of Asians were poor, and 20.6% of Hispanics were poor. For the past 40 years, the number of blacks that are poor has been between a quarter and a third. At least 20% of the Hispanic population has been poor for the past 10 years, and for the 10 years before that the percentage never dropped below 25%.
If a person were to open labor camps for the poor, it would not be unreasonable to assume that half of those present would be either black or Hispanic.
Yeah, half. The other half would not. It is not a specifically black/hispanic issue.
I am putting the onus on you to read the thread that you are taking part in.
OK, I'll try to explain it. You paraphrase his beliefs and expect me to know which ones you are referring to, but this is just not simply possible. People don't write books saying "So and so believes this, but I'm not going to make a bibliography and tell you where to find exactly what they said, you just have to go out and look for it yourself." Honestly, if you aren't willing to back your shit-talking up, I'm not sure why I should even believe you. Here, I'll show you how it's done:
Perhaps, like my husband, you see no point to doing so, and simply ignore Steve. I am sorry, but the Steves of this country gave us Bush and that is an unforgivable crime.
Here, in this statement, Mrs. MacRoss believes that it should be a crime to vote for a valid presidential candidate in the United States presidential election because she disagrees with said candidates political beliefs. This is an example of Single-party beliefs. These beliefs have been tied towards Totalitarian regimes and Communist states such as the Soviet Union. A famous example of a totalitarian regime is the Nazi party. Therefore, she shares some similar beliefs with the Nazi party. Q.E.D
Hereare some tables on distribution of the poor by race in the US. In 2006, 43.9% of those under the poverty level were white, 24.8% were black, 3.7% were Asian, and 25.4% were Hispanic. For the past 40 years, 25-30% of those below the poverty level have been black. The lowest percentage in the tables was in 2004, at 24.3%. Since 1999, the percentage of those below the poverty level that were Hispanic has been above 24%.
Hereare some tables on the distribution of poverty within race groups in the US. In 2006, 8.2% of whites were poor, 24.3% of blacks were poor, 10.3% of Asians were poor, and 20.6% of Hispanics were poor. For the past 40 years, the number of blacks that are poor has been between a quarter and a third. At least 20% of the Hispanic population has been poor for the past 10 years, and for the 10 years before that the percentage never dropped below 25%.
If a person were to open labor camps for the poor, it would not be unreasonable to assume that half of those present would be either black or Hispanic.
Yeah, half. The other half would not. It is not a specifically black/hispanic issue.
That's still fairly significant, considering that only 8.2% of whites would be at the camp. Maybe to say that it is only a black/hispanic issue would be stretching it, but to say it is strongly a black/hispanic issue would not be incorrect.
I hate to say this but the Republicans are going to lose allot of US house Representatives and senate seats in November. I think we are going to lose around 20 seats in congress and 10 seats in the senate. If anyone else besides John McCain was running atop the GOP ticket they would also lose the White House by a wide margin. At least with John McCain we have shot at winning the white house.
Whoa, stop with the attacking Mrs. MacRoss. There should be no dispute that Steve advocated labor camps. He did it right here in this thread. Labor camps make a lot of people think about Nazis.
He also made some pretty racist statements in this thread. I want to know where Jason is. He always likes to try to make me look like a racist. I wonder why he didn't jump on Steve?
Look back over the threads where Joe and I have argued and tell me how often he throws the first personal attack and how often I do. so I did not go to college, that may make me ignorant of things but that does not make me stupid.
Well, something makes you stupid, I don't know if it's lack of college or not. By the way, you were the one who brought that up on the first page of this thread:
I do not have a college degree yet I work a job that requires skill and knowledge. Some of that knowledge I picked up in the Army the rest I picked up on my own or through work.
I don't care what political persuasion you are, because I find you utterly forgettable and insignificant except for the haughty way you have of trying to sound like you know something. Like, for instance:
Yes, I do understand how the market works (myself), do you?
Well, let's see: I took Micro and Macro economics in undergrad, I have a B.S. in History, and when I was in law school I took Business Associations, Corporate Finance, and three semesters of Tax, so I think I have a fair knowledge of how the fucking market works. What did you do? Listen to Limbaugh last Tuesday? See, it's just the presumption, the haughtiness that you think you're so damn clever when you have no basis for it that's part of what pisses me off. Here's another example:
The Democrat response attacks the President for giving a history lesson but does not refute the accuracy of what he said.
That really, really pisses me off. Just the idea that GWB was thinking to himself, "See, I gotta give these Israelis a history lesson because they ain't as smart as me" throws me into a rage. Chimpy couldn't give a history lesson to a fish because he doesn't know any history. No one in the world thought that his statement was a history lesson. Everyone in the world knew that his speech was directed towards Obama. That leads us to the second reason you piss me off. You're so obtuse. Just as in that thread where you ask why comparing a black man to a monkey could be considered racist, you sound as if you really have no clue as to what's going on in the world around you. This cluelessness has a synergistic effect when coupled with your haughtiness and presumption that really makes me wish you would go away and play with your poke-balls.
Here's another example from this thread:
Joe, with all due respect the article we both quoted from got it wrong.
Oh, so you know conclusively that this guy who (1) is a journalist and (2) writes for The Washington Post is wrong? What leads you to believe he's wrong? Your many years of journalistic experience? Your sterling ivy-league education? You have no basis to say anything he wrote in that article was wrong, and yet you simply pronounce him wrong, as though you were some sort of authority. It would help if you maybe gave some logical reason why you think he was wrong, but you just pronounce him wrong and go on spouting more bullshit.
Please stop. You have your own stupid blog where you can spout your bullshit, and you said before that you were going to stop posting so much on political threads. Please do us all a favor and just do that. It would be so much more pleasant if you stayed in the pokemon threads, where at least you would know what you were talking about.
He also made some pretty racist statements in this thread. I want to know where Jason is. He always likes to try to make me look like a racist. I wonder why he didn't jump on Steve?
ORLY? Were those the statements paraphrased from ones Bill Cosby made in front of the NAACP a few years ago?
Yes, I do understand how the market works (myself), do you?
Well, let's see: I took Micro and Macro economics in undergrad, I have a B.S. in History, and when I was in law school I took Business Associations, Corporate Finance, and three semesters of Tax, so I think I have a fair knowledge of how the fucking market works. What did you do? Listen to Limbaugh last Tuesday? See, it's just the presumption, the haughtiness that you think you're so damn clever when you have no basis for it that's part of what pisses me off. Here's another example:
I did not know you were also the account named "myself" because that comment was directed at him not you. I think everyone on here knows about your math background.
He also made some pretty racist statements in this thread. I want to know where Jason is. He always likes to try to make me look like a racist. I wonder why he didn't jump on Steve?
ORLY? Were those the statements paraphrased from ones Bill Cosby made in front of the NAACP a few years ago?
No. They were along the lines of:
Fixing those inner city schools is a two part process. One part of that process involves parents telling their kids that having an education is more important than being true to their "blackness". Being smart does not make you white and it should not be ridiculed. Those who think "keeping it real" means walking around with your pants around your knees laughing at the nerds carrying books are a serious problem in inner cities.
The non-white folks who live near me are much better off and better educated than the ones who live in the inner cities near me. Is it a generalization? Yes but it's all I have to work with other than going by anecdotal evidence.
Sounds pretty racist to me, and nary a Bill Cosby attribution to be found . . .
I did not know you were also the account named "myself" because that comment was directed at him not you. I think everyone on here knows about your math background.
If you were directing a comment at myself, there are much less confusing ways of doing it. The way you wrote it, it sounds like you meant, "Yes, I understand how the markets work (that is, I understand because of work that I've done myself), do you?".
Ladies and gentlemen, listen to these people. They are showing you what’s wrong. People putting their clothes on backwards. Isn’t that a sign of something going on wrong? Are you not paying attention? People with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn’t that a sign of something or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up? Isn’t it a sign of something when she’s got her dress all the way up to the crack -- and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from? We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don’t know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail. (When we give these kinds names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What’s the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up).
I'd much rather have Bush give a history lesson on domestic surveillance. I'd also like a lesson of why he felt it wasn't necessary to count the people's votes when he came to power, if he feels so strongly about bringing democracy to the Middle East.
In my neck of the woods, there is little difference between a Democrat and a Republican. In Texas, except for a few non-mainstream parties, most are conservative. In particular, they are social conservatives, the worst kind in my reckoning. As soon as I get my BFA, I am going where there are more rational people.
I agree that the "Patriot Act" should have been named the "American Surveillance Act". As to counting the votes... If you are referring to Florida that court challenge was started by the Gore campaign not Bush and all subsequent recounts have not altered the "Bush wins Florida" outcome.
I'd much rather have Bush give a history lesson ondomestic surveillance. I'd also like a lesson of why he felt it wasn't necessaryto count the people's voteswhen he came to power, if he feels so strongly about bringing democracy to the Middle East.
I highly doubt that you have any knowledge of the topics you linked to because your labels for them have nothing to do with their respective articles...
I agree that the "Patriot Act" should have been named the "American Surveillance Act". As to counting the votes... If you are referring to Florida that court challenge was started by the Gore campaign not Bush and all subsequent recounts have not altered the "Bush wins Florida" outcome.
It's fair to say Bush won Florida, but his side argued against having a recount.
I highly doubt that you have any knowledge of the topics you linked to because your labels for them have nothing to do with their respective articles...
You are absolutely right, having British troops around to prevent illegal activities is nothing like domestic surveillance that goes on today. Those guys were clearly protecting the colonists freedoms! I'm sure they were greeted as liberators, as they should have been.
Counting votes clearly has nothing to do with elections for representatives. We should always have these things decided by the Supreme Court, it would save everyone a lot of time and money.
It's fair to say Bush won Florida, but his side argued against having a recount.
It's not as simple as that. The Gore campaign wanted a selective recount and not a complete recount of the entire state. A selective recount is hardly fair nor does it "count every vote".
You are absolutely right, having British troops around to prevent illegal activities is nothing like domestic surveillance that goes on today. Those guys were clearly protecting the colonists freedoms! I'm sure they were greeted as liberators, as they should have been.
Wow, you are a fucking idiot.( I should be nicer ) Quartering troops has nothing to do with surveillance. I suggest that you read into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Furthermore it is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution that protects us from "domestic surveillance", not the The Third Amendment. The reason why there is so much discussion about the Patriot Act is that it allows people to conduct surveillance by bypassing any warrants. Here, I'll show you. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While the Third Amendment states:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Counting votes clearly has nothing to do with elections for representatives. It's totally cool to have a few people decide who should be in charge.
The point behind Taxation without Representation was not the fact that the colonists didn't get their votes counted, but the fact that there was never a vote to begin with! They didn't have any representation in Parliament in which they could help decide what the tax laws should be, not the fact that someone miscounted their ballots.
It's not as simple as that. The Gore campaign wanted a selective recount and not a complete recount of the entire state. A selective recount is hardly fair nor does it "count every vote".
That's not what a selective recount is. A selective recount means you only recount the districts where there is a problem.
Let's say we are voting, and there are three districts named A, B and C. We count all the votes the first time, and these are the results.
District - Yeah/Nay A - 1/5 B - 4/6 C - 5/10
Let's pretend there was a problem with voting machines in district C. Why should we wast our time recounting all of the votes from A and B? We leave those votes as they stand, but we recount the 15 votes from district C. The votes from the other district still count, they just don't re-count. A selective recount means you save effort by only recounting the votes in districts where there was a problem, and you keep the original counts of the votes in districts where there were not any problems.
Comments
In closing, if you feel any idea other than the ones you espouse or believe in are somehow not worthy of discussion or debate how do you ever expect to learn anything in life and grow as a person? If all your views are fixed and immutable you might as well just stay off the Internet because something will offend you no matter where you go. I believe in freedom. That includes the freedom to speak and the freedom to be wrong or fail. Do you believe in freedom of speech or would you prefer all those who hold an opinion different than yours be silenced?
I still want to you to explain to me why you think he is a neo-nazi with his quotes. You made the claim, it's time for you to back it up. Don't put the onus on me to support your claim. You have not shown which ones in particular, you have paraphrased. I need to see the exact statements you are talking about.
As for the webpage, under their list of hate groups they reference what each group believes, the major leaders, and where they are located.
Here are some tables on distribution of the poor by race in the US. In 2006, 43.9% of those under the poverty level were white, 24.8% were black, 3.7% were Asian, and 25.4% were Hispanic. For the past 40 years, 25-30% of those below the poverty level have been black. The lowest percentage in the tables was in 2004, at 24.3%. Since 1999, the percentage of those below the poverty level that were Hispanic has been above 24%.
Here are some tables on the distribution of poverty within race groups in the US. In 2006, 8.2% of whites were poor, 24.3% of blacks were poor, 10.3% of Asians were poor, and 20.6% of Hispanics were poor. For the past 40 years, the number of blacks that are poor has been between a quarter and a third. At least 20% of the Hispanic population has been poor for the past 10 years, and for the 10 years before that the percentage never dropped below 25%.
If a person were to open labor camps for the poor, it would not be unreasonable to assume that half of those present would be either black or Hispanic.
He also made some pretty racist statements in this thread. I want to know where Jason is. He always likes to try to make me look like a racist. I wonder why he didn't jump on Steve? Well, something makes you stupid, I don't know if it's lack of college or not. By the way, you were the one who brought that up on the first page of this thread: I don't care what political persuasion you are, because I find you utterly forgettable and insignificant except for the haughty way you have of trying to sound like you know something. Like, for instance: Well, let's see: I took Micro and Macro economics in undergrad, I have a B.S. in History, and when I was in law school I took Business Associations, Corporate Finance, and three semesters of Tax, so I think I have a fair knowledge of how the fucking market works. What did you do? Listen to Limbaugh last Tuesday? See, it's just the presumption, the haughtiness that you think you're so damn clever when you have no basis for it that's part of what pisses me off. Here's another example: That really, really pisses me off. Just the idea that GWB was thinking to himself, "See, I gotta give these Israelis a history lesson because they ain't as smart as me" throws me into a rage. Chimpy couldn't give a history lesson to a fish because he doesn't know any history. No one in the world thought that his statement was a history lesson. Everyone in the world knew that his speech was directed towards Obama. That leads us to the second reason you piss me off. You're so obtuse. Just as in that thread where you ask why comparing a black man to a monkey could be considered racist, you sound as if you really have no clue as to what's going on in the world around you. This cluelessness has a synergistic effect when coupled with your haughtiness and presumption that really makes me wish you would go away and play with your poke-balls.
Here's another example from this thread: Oh, so you know conclusively that this guy who (1) is a journalist and (2) writes for The Washington Post is wrong? What leads you to believe he's wrong? Your many years of journalistic experience? Your sterling ivy-league education? You have no basis to say anything he wrote in that article was wrong, and yet you simply pronounce him wrong, as though you were some sort of authority. It would help if you maybe gave some logical reason why you think he was wrong, but you just pronounce him wrong and go on spouting more bullshit.
Please stop. You have your own stupid blog where you can spout your bullshit, and you said before that you were going to stop posting so much on political threads. Please do us all a favor and just do that. It would be so much more pleasant if you stayed in the pokemon threads, where at least you would know what you were talking about.
Oh, and N15PCA? Fuck you sideways.
Counting votes clearly has nothing to do with elections for representatives. We should always have these things decided by the Supreme Court, it would save everyone a lot of time and money.
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states: While the Third Amendment states: The point behind Taxation without Representation was not the fact that the colonists didn't get their votes counted, but the fact that there was never a vote to begin with! They didn't have any representation in Parliament in which they could help decide what the tax laws should be, not the fact that someone miscounted their ballots.
LRN2READKTHX
Let's say we are voting, and there are three districts named A, B and C. We count all the votes the first time, and these are the results.
District - Yeah/Nay
A - 1/5
B - 4/6
C - 5/10
Let's pretend there was a problem with voting machines in district C. Why should we wast our time recounting all of the votes from A and B? We leave those votes as they stand, but we recount the 15 votes from district C. The votes from the other district still count, they just don't re-count. A selective recount means you save effort by only recounting the votes in districts where there was a problem, and you keep the original counts of the votes in districts where there were not any problems.
Every vote still counts.