Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
914World.com _ 914World Garage _ Virtual bump
Posted by: Part Pricer Sep 23 2004, 07:29 AM
Since I did not allow replies to my poll, it fell off of the first page pretty quickly. To this point, the results are not surprising. They are reflective of what we are seeing from the legitimate polling organizations.
If you haven't voted, please do so.
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=17514
Posted by: Howard Sep 23 2004, 08:30 AM
Sorry, Paul. Your boy is still behind. 
Posted by: SLITS Sep 23 2004, 08:59 AM
Oh is he Aaron's friend with the black 914?
Posted by: balljoint Sep 23 2004, 09:19 AM
I voted. And I'm Canadian. 
And when I voted it was pretty much 50% :50%: 0%,
so with the intention of being politically inflammatory (if that's a word?) I have to say that at least 50% of this board is completely insane. (Understanding that I may be included in that percentage) 
That said, I don't really follow 'Merican politics but I thought your Presidents were only allowed 2 terms in office. Isn't this like 4 coming up for George Bush?
This voting stuff is kind of fun. Maybe I will take a drive down to NY state and vote in the real thing. 
Posted by: Howard Sep 23 2004, 09:39 AM
485 visits and 75 votes???
Apathy?
Posted by: MattR Sep 23 2004, 09:46 AM
2 terms = 8 years (each term is 4 years). W still has one term he could serve, then the republicans must elect a new representative in the primary.
Posted by: Part Pricer Sep 23 2004, 09:52 AM
Apathy?
I don't think it's apathy, more like curiosity.
Everyone that voted probably checked back at least once to look at the results. So, that's 75x2=150.
Then, you have the unregistered guests that have viewed the thread. Here we treat them like the U.S. treats Canadians, they can't vote.
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 23 2004, 10:06 AM
the tread was gone for a while, then it was locked down so you couldn't vote, now it's back, WTF?
Andy
Posted by: balljoint Sep 23 2004, 10:11 AM
Okay, so maybe I can't vote in a U.S. election.
But I can go to Cuba.
Apathy is pretty much the norm in the real thing too, isn't it? I know we get pretty lousy voter turn out up here, even though our political leaders have no term limitations and you'd think we would get tired of the same guy after a decade or longer.
Posted by: Howard Sep 23 2004, 10:46 AM
Send Cigars!
Posted by: SLITS Sep 23 2004, 10:54 AM
But I can go to Cuba.
Apathy is pretty much the norm in the real thing too, isn't it? I know we get pretty lousy voter turn out up here, even though our political leaders have no term limitations and you'd think we would get tired of the same guy after a decade or longer.
Down here, we split the stupidity between two parties and every eight years. Voting for one or the other is like flipping a coin - it's just a different side of the same coin.
Yeh, I voted.
Posted by: John Kelly Sep 23 2004, 01:30 PM
You might want to point out that you can't vote if you look at the vote count first...no "null vote" is not clear, it implies you have already voted, it should say you will not be able to vote if you look first.
So in this poll does the one who gets the most votes win, or, as in the last election, the one with fewer votes gets the win? Just curious...got to love a system that finds a way to justify anything but one person one vote.
John www.ghiaspecialties.com
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 23 2004, 01:54 PM
there you go!
i met a lot of canadians in cuba, in fact, i went to a BBQ at the canadian embassy in havana and spent most of the day hanging about the swimming pool!
Andy
Posted by: balljoint Sep 23 2004, 02:01 PM
Yup, Cuba is a beautiful country. Beaches are great, girls are beautiful and more fine tobacco than you can shake a stick at. The only problem is that Canadians are the loudest, drunkest, most obnovious people on the beach. 
But there is a reason for that......
Posted by: Part Pricer Sep 23 2004, 02:01 PM
So in this poll does the one who gets the most votes win, or, as in the last election, the one with fewer votes gets the win? Just curious...got to love a system that finds a way to justify anything but one person one vote.
John www.ghiaspecialties.com
John, our system is designed so that it is not necessary to win the popular vote. Our Constitution established that and it is the game that all presidential candidates have learned to play.
The one person, one vote principle still applies. But, most individuals do not realize that they are not voting for a candidate, they are voting to influence how one Electoral vote will be cast.
Posted by: John Kelly Sep 23 2004, 03:55 PM
And in such a system millions of votes for president do not mean anything...they simply do not count. The electoral system is corrupt and overly complex. There is no reason for it except people's fear of how others might vote. I'm not afraid of anyones vote. In this system the two parties pay almost no attention to states that are locked up for their side or the other, which means politicians end up pandering to small groups of people instead of reaching out to everyone. One person, one vote a fundamentally fair, anything else is not...do you think there would be any chance of changing to the electoral system in this country if we had one person one vote in place instead? I don't. My vote should be worth no more or less than anyone elses. Anything else is simply cheating. I'd like to hear anyone explain the benefits of the electoral system for me...what's good about it? Why do we need it? How is it better or more fair than one person one vote? If the argument is small states need protection from large states, they already have a governor and two senators fighting for their interests regardless of population, so that does not wash. I think if Bush had won the popular vote by about a half a million people, and lost in the electoral college we might be having a national debate about this right now. And I would feel the same way I do now. How would my republican friends feel?
John www.ghiaspecialties.com
Posted by: rhodyguy Sep 23 2004, 04:03 PM
bye bye miles. see ya around. . paul, you should give the lads over in the ot forum at the bird the "why you should always listen to your father".
kevin
Posted by: Part Pricer Sep 23 2004, 04:38 PM
John,
I understand your position. However, our country is guided by the Constitution and, in this case, particularly the 12th ammendment.
Unfortunately, there seems to be more interest in creating an ammendment that regulates personal lifestyle than repairing the electoral process.
Posted by: John Kelly Sep 23 2004, 05:20 PM
Hi Paul,
You got that right!
Thanks, John www.ghiaspecialties.com
Posted by: rick 918-S Sep 23 2004, 08:59 PM
Like Ross Perot said during the all party debate. He was asked who he would vote for if he wasn't running... He said, " Ah...give me two bad choices...." He was funny!
Posted by: MattR Sep 23 2004, 09:06 PM
The percentages just swapped! Bush was up at near 60%, now kerry is. I want a recount 
Posted by: Qarl Sep 23 2004, 09:28 PM
Funny reading...
http://www.theonion.com/election2004/
I am particularly fond of Kerry's One-point plan for an a Better America.... Remove George W. from the White House!
Posted by: rick 918-S Sep 23 2004, 09:32 PM
http://www.theonion.com/election2004/
I am particularly fond of Kerry's One-point plan for an a Better America.... Remove George W. from the White House!
LMFAO!
DOOOD! 
Posted by: GWN7 Sep 23 2004, 10:17 PM
I didn't vote here, but I heard you can go to Florida and vote if your Canadian
Posted by: thomasotten Sep 23 2004, 10:34 PM
Ok, to you people out there that think the electoral college is stupid, and outdated, please consider why it is there. We are the "United State of America", meaning a group of states capable of making their own laws, that have joined together for various reasons. For national elections, the states with smaller populations wanted to make sure that the states with larger populations didn't just run rough shod over them. The fear was (and is) that a radical majority, in a few highly populated sates could enact laws that would then be lorded over the rest of the states. So, there needed to be a way of dampening the effects of that radical, concentrated majority. Thus, the electoral college: Each state is guaranteed a minimum number of electoral votes.
So, really, the electoral college is doing it's job very well. Today, for instance, the east and west coasts are more to the extreme when it comes to social values. States like the one I live in, Texas, are very different. In 2000, we saw both coasts vote for Al Gore, wheras the more rural states went for Bush. So Gore narrowly won by popular vote, while Bush won by land area. So you may argue, shouldn't Gore be President because he got more votes? The answer, unfortunatley for Gore is, no. Yes, he got more votes, but his appeal wasn't broad enough to make him win the hearts and minds of enough people in enough states to elect him. When you consider that Gore didn't even win his home state, we can definitley see that the electoral college did it's job. Tennessee is a rural state, and very different from the politician that Gore had become. (For instance, as a local politician in Tennessee, Gore was pro-life, and much in keeping with his state. When Gore became a national politician, he became pro-abortion.) So, if Gore would have won his home state, none of that stuff in Florida would have mattered. So it really, was Tennesse, not Florida that tipped the scale for Bush, and caused him to win the election.
Of course, there is one element in our democracy that is rendering the electoral college and the rest of representative democracy null and void. I speak of the tyrannical judges, that are overrulling the will, and vote, of the people when, as in the recent case in Massachusetts, they told the legislature what law they had to write, and by what date.
Posted by: jimtab Sep 23 2004, 10:38 PM
Apathy?
I don't think it's apathy, more like curiosity.
Everyone that voted probably checked back at least once to look at the results. So, that's 75x2=150.
Then, you have the unregistered guests that have viewed the thread. Here we treat them like the U.S. treats Canadians, they can't vote.
Oh I'm pretty sure that anyone can vote democratic in Chicago......
Posted by: PatW Sep 23 2004, 10:43 PM
Oh I'm pretty sure that anyone can vote democratic in Chicago......
Ya, and the ballot boxes in S.F have fins and propellers too. Right Jim?.
Posted by: jimtab Sep 23 2004, 10:48 PM
The electoral college was created by wealthy and privilaged early americans to disallow direct election when the majority was poor and not as well educated or entitled as they were. They still feel the same way. Look it up.
Posted by: jimtab Sep 23 2004, 10:49 PM
Oh I'm pretty sure that anyone can vote democratic in Chicago......
Ya, and the ballot boxes in S.F have fins and propellers too. Right Jim?.
Not just yes, but, HELL YES!!!!
Posted by: jimtab Sep 23 2004, 10:52 PM
So, really, the electoral college is doing it's job very well. Today, for instance, the east and west coasts are more to the extreme when it comes to social values. States like the one I live in, Texas, are very different. In 2000, we saw both coasts vote for Al Gore, wheras the more rural states went for Bush. So Gore narrowly won by popular vote, while Bush won by land area. So you may argue, shouldn't Gore be President because he got more votes? The answer, unfortunatley for Gore is, no. Yes, he got more votes, but his appeal wasn't broad enough to make him win the hearts and minds of enough people in enough states to elect him. When you consider that Gore didn't even win his home state, we can definitley see that the electoral college did it's job. Tennessee is a rural state, and very different from the politician that Gore had become. (For instance, as a local politician in Tennessee, Gore was pro-life, and much in keeping with his state. When Gore became a national politician, he became pro-abortion.) So, if Gore would have won his home state, none of that stuff in Florida would have mattered. So it really, was Tennesse, not Florida that tipped the scale for Bush, and caused him to win the election.
Of course, there is one element in our democracy that is rendering the electoral college and the rest of representative democracy null and void. I speak of the tyrannical judges, that are overrulling the will, and vote, of the people when, as in the recent case in Massachusetts, they told the legislature what law they had to write, and by what date.
It's a cute map, do you remember what the raw (direct) vote was? If we had no electoral college the people(remember them) would have elected Al Gore. He was the raw vote winner, for better or worse, like it or not. Some of the big red areas on the map have VERY few folks in them.
Posted by: thomasotten Sep 23 2004, 10:59 PM
I guess you didn't read my post because in it I said that Gore won the popular vote. You sound to be in full "spin" mode, so this may be pointless. But I read your post. And, yes, those larger areas have fewer, and yes, poorer people. Nevertheless, the states with the fewer, poorer people have rights that should not be entirely dictated by the more populated states.
Posted by: Lawrence Sep 23 2004, 11:17 PM
I would have actually participated in this poll, but I can't... sorry.
Not enough parties represented.
-Rusty
Posted by: Meredith Sep 23 2004, 11:34 PM
So, who's gonna hijack the thread this time?
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 23 2004, 11:44 PM
you just did!
so, Mer, can you post a complete pic of that car in your avatar?
we unworthy europeans grew up without ford mustangs so i have no idea what your dream car looks like ...
Andy
Posted by: Meredith Sep 23 2004, 11:52 PM
This isn't actually my dream car. I would prefer a '65 or '66, but I guess I could "settle" for this. Not a great picture. The position of the sun didn't allow for much flexibility.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: Meredith Sep 23 2004, 11:53 PM
Nice Camaro, too.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: Meredith Sep 23 2004, 11:54 PM
And finally, my favorite paint job out of all the cars we saw...subtle flames on a Nova.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: GWN7 Sep 24 2004, 01:38 AM
a buddy has one of these (his is white tho)
70 GT500
Attached image(s)
Posted by: John Kelly Sep 24 2004, 09:58 AM
Hi Thomas,
I knew someone would try to defend the electoral college. Thanks for stepping up. I also know it could only be based on geographical prejudice...the fear of how someone from somewhere else might vote. Is that the only way so called conservatives can win? I don't think so. Your assumption is that the "heartland" voters are somehow more moral or have a better way than someone else is preposterous. Come out with it. Why is your vote worth more or less than mine? Because of where we live? What does Gore not winning the state he came from have to do with anything? Who cares? A fair system is one in which everyone has there one vote counted. Anything else pre-supposses some built in bias that needs to be corrected. As I said before, small states are actually better represented already having a governor and two senators no matter how few people are in them. Being pencil-whipped before getting to the poles is pathetic. Your comments on judges are also interesting. When judges do something that conservatives don't like, they are labeled activists. I'm sorry things don't always go your way, they don't always go my way either. Our system is corrupted by money, special interests, and antuiquated election laws, to the point where a very small part of the population has almost all of the control over the laws written to cover us all. The really sad thing is the press, and their ass-kissing failure to cover anything but the mushy middle. I actually enjoy listening to conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes...two smart guys who I mostly disagree with, unfortunately Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky (look him up) get almost no air time what so ever, especially Noam Chomsky a real liberal who evidentally scares the press so much they can't cover him. I'm sure there are conservatives who are similarly kept out. The fear of other's opinions is the root of all evil. Time for real debate, not the crap that passes for it on your TV and mine. The two parties become more like each other all the time, which is a terrible diservice to the public. The republicans have been hi-jacked by war mongering "nation building" idealogs, and the democrats are a bunch of cowards who don't stand up for what they believe in...a recipe for the pathetic situation we are in now.
John www.ghiaspecialties.com
Posted by: Part Pricer Sep 24 2004, 10:23 AM
To help educate and further fuel this debate, I found the following on the Federal Election Commission site:
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is
essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the
Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of
how to elect a president in a nation that:
- was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own
rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government - contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of
Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication
(so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been
thought desirable) - believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry
St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not
downright evil, and - felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying
was \\"The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the
office.\\").
national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance
between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the
States and the federal government on the other?
Posted by: thomasotten Sep 24 2004, 10:36 AM
Anyone who likes ALan Keyes can't be all that bad. The man is brialliant. And as far as the press is concerned, yes, our press is crap. Does our press show the bloodshed in Africa? No. Does it show the scott Peterson trial? Yes. Will it show exactly what happens in a partial-birth-abortion? No.
Pure democracy is mob rule. If two guys and one girl are in a room and the two guys vote to rape the girl, in a pure democracy, rights can be violated.
On the other hand, I would be glad to trade the electoral college for a restraint on activists judges. If the branches of government are to be co-equal, then how can we have a judiciary telling the legislature what to do? And why isn't that judiciary impeached for that action? The answer, unfortunatley can be found in a quote from one of the founding fathers:
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
-Samuel Adams
Posted by: rhodyguy Sep 24 2004, 10:45 AM
like most things that were the hot snot of the day; not bathing because you would become ill, the horse and buggy, gas lighting, the telegraph, cess pools, amputating limbs to prevent infection, steam locomotives, and carburetors, things cease to be the best solution for issue the were designed for. to be fair the states that have had vast numbers of their population relocate, should have the proportional number of electoral votes reassigned to the states that have had increases. the notion that al gore lost the election due to not carrying his home state is 
.
quoting the men that were considered rablerausers and traitors to their governments during their day allways cracks me up. please bear in mind that these weathly PROPERTY OWNERS were outraged by the tarrifs and the taxes imposed by crown. the primary personal freedom they were losing was to not make as great of fourtunes in a brightly defined class seperated society.
kevin
Posted by: SLITS Sep 24 2004, 10:52 AM
Come to CA and see our f****d up laws because the judges decided we can't have what we vote for.
And as far as the candidates - like I said - different side of the same coin. Turn 'em upside down, there is no difference.
And the Mustangs & Camaros - POS when built and still are. Shelby had to redesign the Stang to go around a corner and Donahue redesigned the Camaro to do the same. Ya'll forgot the Baracuda - favorite vision of those was watching one chase a Mini-Cooper S at Santa Barbara - never did pass the little guy even tho the Bacaruder was roaring with ear splitting noise.
Damn, I thought Samuel Adams brewed bad beer.
Ok - flame away!!!!!!
Posted by: Meredith Sep 24 2004, 12:12 PM
I agree, the Cudas are nice. I like the one in Nash Bridges.
Mer
Posted by: thomasotten Sep 24 2004, 01:59 PM
quoting the men that were considered rablerausers and traitors to their governments during their day allways cracks me up.
The reason I quoted from Adams was not for any particular liking of him. I quoted from him because what he said was true. Sure, these founding fathers were not perfect - they were even slave owners! But I think we need to glean out what is true, and in his statement, there is a kernel of truth. What he was saying is that none of this stuff of representative democracy would matter a hill of beans if the people it is designed to protect did themsleves become corrupt. And that is what has happened to our society. Will we get out of it? I don't know. I am hopeful, being that this country managed to overcome the evil of slavery. Did you know it was the Supreme Court that declared that blacks were not "persons"? And, yet again, we find ourselves in the same place, where the Court has declared innocent life that is not wanted or convenient not worthy of the title "person", and not worthy of the protection of law. To be fair, I cannot put this blame on the people on whole as being corrupt, because it was the action of a rogue court that did that in 1973. But a lot people have grown into or accepted that horrible law over time. In the case of slavery, it was just the opposite: The country started with slavery well ingrained, and the Court was simply upholding the status-quo. But either way, Adam's words hold true.
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 24 2004, 02:14 PM
i'm happy to see that you paid attention in your rhetoric classes.
as your comments are just that, rhetoric ...
you call a court "rogue court" when they make a decision you don't like.
you call a judge "activists judge" when he makes a decision you don't like.
democracy is not about you getting what you want all the time.
it's about compromise. and until you get that in your head, you'd be better off buying a island in the pacific and be your own dictator.
because that is essentially what you're asking for ...
Andy
Posted by: Meredith Sep 24 2004, 02:29 PM
And in what is surely not another attempt to hijack this thread , here's a car I wanted to get just because we were matching.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 24 2004, 02:41 PM
schweet!
you should have bought that car ...
Andy
Posted by: thomasotten Sep 24 2004, 03:26 PM
you call a court "rogue court" when they make a decision you don't like.
you call a judge "activists judge" when he makes a decision you don't like.
No. I call a court a "rogue court" when they deny basic human rights like right to life and right not to be a slave.
Posted by: SLITS Sep 24 2004, 03:30 PM
, here's a car I wanted to get just because we were matching. A '55 Belair 2 door w/283 CID - I'll take the '57 Convert
Posted by: SirAndy Sep 24 2004, 03:36 PM
that is your personal opinion and that is OK, but you also have to understand that there are a lot of people in this country who disagree with your views on abortion.
would you still have called the very same judges a "rogue court" if they had decided otherwise? i assume not.
Andy
Posted by: rhodyguy Sep 24 2004, 03:49 PM
there's no trying discuss it andy. the religious right sure wants to tell you what to do and how shall live your life. very talibanesque. they would prefer the supreme court conform to their standards, yet maintain the separation of church and state.
kevin
Posted by: Bleyseng Sep 24 2004, 03:50 PM
Ahh now it makes sense.
My sister got pregnant under the "old" laws at 15 and it was a major hassle to get an abortion for her. Was that a wise choice? She has said yes over and over again all these years as it was a stupid mistake.
Who is the "slave" or "the unprotected" if a woman gets pregnant? I have always thought it is the choice of the woman to decide if she wants the pregnacy not the "law of the land at the moment". Someones rights has to prevail since their are two parties involved.....
Oh, nice car! Is that a Crown Victoria???
Geoff
Posted by: Meredith Sep 24 2004, 05:45 PM
Geoff
I have no idea.
I just thought it was cute. Mer
Posted by: fiid Sep 24 2004, 06:02 PM
I thought it was agreed that politics was off limits.
I mean - it's not my choice, I can talk about it all day, but didn't the electorate vote to disallow it, or did you get a supreme court decision to allow this thread?
Posted by: thomasotten Sep 24 2004, 08:00 PM
Andy:
Of course I would not call the court a "rogue court" if it at least defended the most fundamental of rights. That is what courts are supposed to do. By saying "that is just your opinion", I would say yes it is my opinion. But, some opinions are right and some are wrong. Killing is wrong. We know that. It is something that is self evident. If the court cannot defend the most basic right, how can it have any legitimacy? In other words, if you take away the right to life, all other rights are meaningless because without life, you have no rights.
Posted by: Meredith Sep 24 2004, 08:04 PM
Sigh.
Well, I tried to steer the conversation away from politics. Didn't get a lot of help from the crowd, though.
Mer
Posted by: thomasotten Sep 24 2004, 08:12 PM
Well, I tried to steer the conversation away from politics. Didn't get a lot of help from the crowd, though.
Mer
Mer:
You need to show us pics of Porshes... the muscle car thing just doesn't do it for me.
Posted by: Meredith Sep 24 2004, 08:35 PM
What?! This is a Porsche website and you need me to show you pictures of Porsches?! 
Mer
Posted by: PatW Sep 24 2004, 08:36 PM
You need to show us pics of Porshes... the muscle car thing just doesn't do it for me.
I used to have one of these many years ago.. It was my first car and I had do a Valve job on it before I got to drive it.. Hey! it's not a Porsche but its red!.
Babe Magnet.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: jimtab Sep 24 2004, 11:32 PM
Geoff
I have no idea.
I just thought it was cute. Mer
Looks like my dad's old 56 Lincoln Premier, the only year he didn't buy the Continental (because it was too small) we missed an all time classic, the Mark II.
Posted by: redshift Sep 24 2004, 11:44 PM
I'll see you assholes when John Kerry, and Ladybird Heinz are back home, acting like a retard senator, and a braindead whore.
4 more years
Miles
Posted by: Aaron Cox Sep 24 2004, 11:51 PM
i may be alone...but some people believe this forum should be politics free 
Posted by: RAR Sep 25 2004, 12:00 AM
I think the McGuire sisters still sound great. What on earth was Phyllis thinking though, by hanging around with Giancana?
Posted by: Meredith Sep 25 2004, 12:07 AM
You're not alone. Want to post some Porsche pictures so they finally shut up?
Mer
Posted by: MattR Sep 25 2004, 12:16 AM
Polititians are the same all around. They promise to build a bridge even with no river.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)