“The Kids Are Alright,” but they’re not exactly kids …
A cover of a song released 50 years ago next year.
Rock and roll will never die.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
583 comments Add your comment
getalife
January 26th, 2013
9:16 pm
moonbat,
Our President ended the failed occupations and torture.
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
9:18 pm
ummmm, keep.
foxie spam…
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
9:20 pm
“Our President ended the failed occupations and torture.”
Funny, he didn’t mention that in his campaign last year…
You know something he doesn’t, getalife?
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
9:24 pm
funny how liberals like fox or limbaugh when it suits them…
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
9:26 pm
I guess obama’s just a modest guy?
Fred ™
January 26th, 2013
9:26 pm
Wow. The hate and bitterness from the failed talk radio/FOXBOTS is strong lately. Is this like the final violent deaththroes of the impotent? I think it is………
Hi Moonbat, just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk
td
January 26th, 2013
9:28 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 26th, 2013
9:02 pm
td, are you drinking?
GA has 14 representatives in the House and 2 senators = 16 EV
Montana has 1 rep and 2 senators = 3 EV
Representatives in Congress are determined by population. Each state gets 2 senators. You do know the history of how we created a Senate and a House of Representatives and the difference between the two.
You get more buffoonish with every post showing your total ignorance. Silly child.
Did you actually read the numbers I posted? No one can be this unintelligent about simple Math: Let me try one more time.
In WY they receive one electoral vote per every 192,137 people
In Montana they receive one electoral vote per every 335,047 people
In GA they receive one electoral vote per every 619,996 people
In NY they receive one electoral vote per every 674,836 people
In Ca they receive one electoral vote per every 691,662 people
Do you get the fact now that your individual vote for President counts 6 times more in WY then it does in CA?
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
9:34 pm
Thanks, Fred.
I’ve witnessed a Rush concert and it was awesome of course.
Something off the beaten path:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb8VGPHA_sc
getalife
January 26th, 2013
9:35 pm
You have to open up your ears and listen or research moonbat.
Facts do matter again.
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
9:36 pm
td, you can’t argue with the goons, man.
You wind up playing semantics games the whole time…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhhJqJV_u6M
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 26th, 2013
9:44 pm
td, you are a silly child. 2 Senators = 2 EVs. We have a Senate which is not based on the number of people in a state for a reason….you do know history, right? Every other EV is allocated based on population. Thus WY gets 2 EVs for their state and 1 for their population (1 for population is the minimum). Now you can continue with ignoring how that came about all you want. I am all for getting rid of the EC. But as usual, you have shown your incapability to post intelligently again.
Brosephus™
January 26th, 2013
9:44 pm
Do you get the fact now that your individual vote for President counts 6 times more in WY then it does in CA?
As there is no law for electors to cast their votes based on the popular vote, nobody’s vote counts any more than anybody else. Georgia’s electors could have cast their votes for Obama or Johnson instead of Romney, and there is no law that could have forced them to do otherwise. Arguments, such as your numbers argument, is just like trying to debate who polluted the pool more, the person who pissed an ounce or the person who pissed a gallon.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
9:44 pm
td – I don’t think Bush was deliberly lying. Bu I do think he should have known better. He was just listening to the wrong pwople and got taken in. That’s my take on it, at any rate.
Jm
January 26th, 2013
9:50 pm
Democrats and republicans will compromise, mostly through republican capitulation
We will have low taxes except on the rich
And we will have very high spending
Meaning high deficits and the road to ruin has been paved in brand new stimulus asphalt
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
9:50 pm
talk about pointless arguments.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
9:51 pm
Jm – always the pessimist. why is that?
Jm
January 26th, 2013
9:52 pm
Moonbat 9:36 true dat
td
January 26th, 2013
9:52 pm
Brosephus™
January 26th, 2013
9:44 pm
I understand what you are talking about and like I said in another post. Any state can decide to ignore the Presidential result in their state and send the entire electors for the other candidate.
Since we have established that electors vote for the President and not the people, then what is the big deal the progressives are making about states changing the way their electors are vote in the college?
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
9:53 pm
spendin is going to come dow. and taxes and revenues will go up as we grow. there will be no ruin
Jm
January 26th, 2013
9:53 pm
Oscar
Realist
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 26th, 2013
9:56 pm
Every state gets 2 Senators. Each federal law must be passed by the Senate. Based on population, WY has more “impact” on each law than GA. This is based on the creation of the Senate. If you don’t like the historical wisdom of the Founding Fathers, feel free to try to amend the US Constitution
td
January 26th, 2013
9:56 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
9:44 pm
td – I don’t think Bush was deliberly lying. Bu I do think he should have known better. He was just listening to the wrong pwople and got taken in. That’s my take on it, at any rate.
He and the Democratic Senators that voted to go to war were listening to the top intelligence agencies in the world. It is hard for me to believe that they were all wrong. Maybe, those chemical and bio weapons were just sent to other places (Like the Bathist party in Syria) before the war begin sort of like a great deal of the fighter aircraft were flown to Iran so that they would not get destroyed.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
9:58 pm
td – because what they want to do will thwart the will of the majority of the people in the state. and that is not good. the candidate the majority of the people in the state vote for should get the majority of the state’s electoral votes
td
January 26th, 2013
9:59 pm
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 26th, 2013
9:56 pm
Every state gets 2 Senators. Each federal law must be passed by the Senate. Based on population, WY has more “impact” on each law than GA. This is based on the creation of the Senate. If you don’t like the historical wisdom of the Founding Fathers, feel free to try to amend the US Constitution
Changing the subject now that you realize smaller states get an advantage over big states in the Presidential elections. Nice deflection.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:00 pm
td = possible, but i was talking about the nuculear progam, or supposed nuculear program.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:03 pm
Which is more of a realist. an optimist or a pessimist. Or both. Or neither.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:04 pm
td – they also get a hugh advantage in the senate.
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:05 pm
“Each federal law must be passed by the Senate. Based on population, WY has more “impact” on each law than GA”
How do you work that out? Since population has NOTHING to do with how many Senators Wyoming has, then that state has exactly the same “impact” on a law as any other state.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:06 pm
sorry. looks like you already said that. i vote we amend the constitution
td
January 26th, 2013
10:06 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
9:58 pm
td – because what they want to do will thwart the will of the majority of the people in the state. and that is not good. the candidate the majority of the people in the state vote for should get the majority of the state’s electoral votes
You are making the same argument that the big states did prior to the electoral college compromise. The smaller states said heck no and as a result we have the electoral college to protect the more rural, less populace states. Now it appears we have some states that want to protect the more rural population areas of the state from the populace centers control.
As I have proven in the debate over the electoral college the Presidential elections are not based on the principle of one man one vote so I see no problem with the states allocating as they want too in the same manner that Maine and NE already do today.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:08 pm
should Why, with fewer people, have the same impact as Ca. i don’t think so.
td
January 26th, 2013
10:09 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:04 pm
td – they also get a hugh advantage in the senate.
You are absolutely right. Remember the original intent of the Senate was to protect the rights of the state so therefore the people did not even vote for their Senator. They were appointed by the states legislature.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:10 pm
td – what you are saying is that since we are already wrong, we might as well become more wrong. i guess there is a point there.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:12 pm
the state legislatures also decide how the pres eloctors are decided upon.
td
January 26th, 2013
10:12 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:06 pm
sorry. looks like you already said that. i vote we amend the constitution
If you are going to do that then majority will rule and you might as well throw out the entire government and just go to a parliamentary style.
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:15 pm
“should Why, with fewer people, have the same impact as Ca. i don’t think so”
there’s no need to have that argument all over again. It was hashed out well over 200 years ago and Ben Franklin resolved it with the system we have now. If you don’t know anything about that, here’s your opportunity to go and learn something about the history of this country.
td
January 26th, 2013
10:16 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:10 pm
td – what you are saying is that since we are already wrong, we might as well become more wrong. i guess there is a point there.
The framers are only wrong if you feel we should have a strong central government controlling every aspect of a persons life. I submit that our framers did not want this form of government so therefore they placed all these weird laws in the Constitution to not let any single power be in control.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:16 pm
dog – i knew about it. time to correct their mistake
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:18 pm
td = nobody wants the govt controlling every part of a person’s life. i call a stretch on that comment.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:20 pm
they put the wierd laws in the constitution as a comprimise so they could get it passed. not because anyone though that was the best way to run a country
France's richest man moves to Belgium and takes multi-billion pound fortune with him 'to avoid new socialist super-tax'
January 26th, 2013
10:21 pm
The stupidity of Socialisim is that if it does not pay for a man to produce more he will STOP producing more. Why do extra work to make extra money if you cant keep any of it?. This rule applies to both the rich and regular working people. The End result is that suddenly the country can no longer support itself—But the Leaders STILL want to stay in power, so they FORCE the people to work more for less–And eventually forbid them to leave—-Opression and slavery then begins—As an natural progression and end result of Socialisim. Socialisim only benifits Tyrants and freeloaders.
TomRay , Jackson MS, 27/1/2013 02:48
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267800/Bernard-Arnault-Frances-richest-man-moves-Belgium-avoid-new-socialist-super-tax.html#ixzz2J8tEmoiw
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:24 pm
france – thar’s why no one, almost know one, wants socialism in this country. except arthur blank who wants the state to build him a stadium
td
January 26th, 2013
10:24 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:18 pm
td = nobody wants the govt controlling every part of a person’s life. i call a stretch on that comment.
Is it really a stretch considering how strong the central government has become over the past 100 years and how much the government is now involved in peoples lives since the “Great society”?
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:25 pm
“i knew about it. time to correct their mistake”
Except it was no mistake. So there’s nothing to correct. These aren’t the first extreme partisan times we have faced, and they won’t be the last. We’ve survived and thrived after the previous ones, and this one won’t be any different. That is the POWER of what the Founding Fathers bequethed to us. That our form of government can survive even severe shocks.
Barack Obama pledged this morning in his weekly radio address to continue to crackdown on "irresponsible behavior."
January 26th, 2013
10:25 pm
I thought/hoped this crackdown was directed to the generational government dependents, but sadly no…
td
January 26th, 2013
10:28 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:24 pm
france – thar’s why no one, almost know one, wants socialism in this country. except arthur blank who wants the state to build him a stadium
What direction do you think we are heading in my friend? How much of nations economy does the Federal government currently control though regulation? Just with the passage of Obamacare, the Federal government now controls nearly 20% of the total nations economy.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:28 pm
of course there is something to correct. montana should not have the same number of senators as new york
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:29 pm
td – that needs to be reduced. and will be.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:31 pm
obamacare is not going to work. you can’t make people buy something they can’t afford. and we can continue spending money we don’t collect in revenue.
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:31 pm
“of course there is something to correct. montana should not have the same number of senators as new york”
Luckily for this country, it’s not your decision to make…and it’s not a decision the country will every have to make. it’s not going to be changed. The power of our form of government and it’s strength after all these years will destroy any attempts to change it.
td
January 26th, 2013
10:31 pm
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:25 pm
I agree with you on this issue.
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
10:33 pm
“montana should not have the same number of senators as new york.”
that’s why we need assault rifles.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:35 pm
now you say it’s right because it can’t be changed. that’s weird thinking
td
January 26th, 2013
10:35 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:28 pm
of course there is something to correct. montana should not have the same number of senators as new york
Not going to happen. To amend the Constitution 75% of the states would have to approve the change and there is no way the bottom 40 states in population are going to give the top 10 more power and control.
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:36 pm
Thanks td
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:36 pm
go, moonbat
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:37 pm
td – never said it would happen. said it should happen, there is a difference
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:37 pm
“now you say it’s right because it can’t be changed. that’s weird thinking”
Except I did NOT SAY it “can’t be changed”…I said it WON’T be changed.
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:39 pm
sematics. that still does not make it right. still weird thinking
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:40 pm
and now you are shouting. that is hard on the ears
td
January 26th, 2013
10:40 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:35 pm
now you say it’s right because it can’t be changed. that’s weird thinking
Not trying to bash you in anyway my friend because I enjoy the debate in a civil manner with a blogger. I really want to recommend you to get into a little historical study of why our founders wrote these laws and the logic behind them. I think it might give you a little different prospective on what is going on today with politics.
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
10:42 pm
Oscar, don’t get in a battle of semantics with doggone – you’ll be here forever.
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:42 pm
“sematics. that still does not make it right. still weird thinking”
It’s not just semantics. It’s misquoting and trying to attribute YOUR mistaken words to me. And it’s not “weird” – it’s accepting reality.
td
January 26th, 2013
10:43 pm
Oscar
January 26th, 2013
10:37 pm
td – never said it would happen. said it should happen, there is a difference
I do not think it should happen because I do not want the 10 or 20 biggest populace centers in this country thinking they know what is best for me living in a rural area.
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
10:44 pm
What is your native language, Doggone?
Doggone/GA
January 26th, 2013
10:44 pm
Getting late. Time to hit the sack. I’ve got an early morning tomorrow.
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
10:45 pm
Yep, that’s what I thought.
Goodnight, Doggone.
Fred ™
January 26th, 2013
11:02 pm
Thanks for the Triumph Betty. I always loved them. Saw them twice back when they were touring. Did you like Creed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHcYaS3m1c4
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
11:15 pm
I loved this one, Fred:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99j0zLuNhi8
td
January 26th, 2013
11:16 pm
Jay,
Since I was out in the field working Friday and this blog went down fast when Saxby’s announcement was made. Please allow me a little time on this blog to answer a question you posed.
Jay
January 25th, 2013
9:33 am
So you guys are arguing that a rural vote ought to count more than an urban vote? That 20,000 rural voters ought to be able to trump 30,000 urban voters?
This is what happens today in states with the electoral college. The smaller the states population then the more the individuals vote counts more then an individuals vote in a more populace state.
In WY they receive one electoral vote per every 192,137 people
In Montana they receive one electoral vote per every 335,047 people
In GA they receive one electoral vote per every 619,996 people
In NY they receive one electoral vote per every 674,836 people
In Ca they receive one electoral vote per every 691,662 people
This is the reason a President can win the popular vote in the country and still lose the election.
moonbat betty
January 26th, 2013
11:42 pm
have a cigar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDpc04r_QM
DebbieDoRight - Minister Of Propaganda
January 27th, 2013
2:05 am
Fred: . I better not engage you anymore, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, I could be charged, since you are showing signs that you are severely deficient in mental powers. To the point one could easily make the argument that you are mentally disabled.
Classic!
Political Mongrel
January 27th, 2013
2:31 am
I thought rock died in the ’70’s with the advent of disco. Then I thought it came back with grunge and died again after Cobain’s death. Both times I was wrong. There’s a ton of excellent acts out there and good songwriting. Legacy bands are still going strong. Serious playing (for a while thought self-indulgent by folks who thought the song was the only thing that counts) is coming back with a vengeance among the younger generation. I can enjoy listening to new bands for the instrumentalists again. About time.
Jay
January 27th, 2013
6:21 am
Yes, td, it can happen under the current electoral system, as it did in 2000.
The intent of this new plan is to try to encourage it to happen, and on a larger scale. When I ran the numbers earlier, they show that Romney might have won in 2012 despite losing the popular vote 51-47, which is a pretty large margin.
If you think the country is divided today with a lack of trust in the system, consciously creating that kind of system will make it much much worse.
Orange13
January 27th, 2013
6:58 am
Remember those old silver dollars that your Grandmother gave you when you were young?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-20/silver-vaults-stuffed-mean-prices-rising-29-in-13-commodities.html
indigo
January 27th, 2013
8:23 am
Jay – 6:38 “if you think the country is divided today”
It’s clear this does not concern Republicans in the slightest.
It’s also clear that winning the White House any way possible is the main goal. They probably know the American people would not stand for this for long. But, as short-term thinking seems to be their limit, the disapproval of the people is of no consequence.
How did the once proud Republican Party sink to such a sorry state?
Jm
January 27th, 2013
8:26 am
Sunday talking heads coming up
barking frog
January 27th, 2013
8:34 am
Orange 13 6:58
The article on silver is another indicator that if the lie, that the US is in
trouble financially, is told often enough some people will believe it.
Orange13
January 27th, 2013
8:50 am
Frog,
Maybe. I’m just pointing out that silver might be a fair investment this year.
indigo
January 27th, 2013
8:52 am
The media finds it necessary to put Honey Boo Boo, Manti Te’o and Lance Armstrong at the top of the news list.
This gives us a good indication of the educational and intellectual level of Republcian voters.
JamVet - Not a member of the Stupid, Backward and Insulting Party.
January 27th, 2013
9:08 am
Political Mongrel, agreed.
Of course there is no way that the impact and amount of amazing artistic talent could stay at the same level as it did for those 15 years from 1964 – 1979. It will likely never be rivaled, but……
There is still a lot of great new talent out there. One merely has to be prepared to move a lot of musical dirt to find the gems!
And even as early as 1975, rockers were lamenting the impending sell out and downfall of the business of making music…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWRodOpoDQ
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
January 27th, 2013
9:10 am
indigo
January 27th, 2013
8:52 am
Are you suggesting that the media is more conservative than liberal?
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
January 27th, 2013
9:16 am
barking frog
January 27th, 2013
8:34 am
How on earth can you buy into the fact that based on our federal income and balance sheet statements, we are anything less that in financial trouble? We have to borrow simply to cover our interest expense.
How much debt service or total debt is too much? 25 trillion, 35 trillion??
Get Real
January 27th, 2013
9:31 am
indigo @ 8:23 am — How did the once proud Republican Party sink to such a sorry state?
It’s the only real way to overcome the 47% which is increasing.
For example, in the last month of data observation, food stamp usage increased by more than 600,000. Keep in mind to qualify for food stamps you have to carefully demonstrate that you are earning very little and technically are classified as being in poverty. So what does it say that our nation now has 47.7 million Americans on food stamps?
Jm
January 27th, 2013
9:33 am
Obama busy with politics instead of running the country
Yep
Jm
January 27th, 2013
9:35 am
Liberals
Obama not spending enough
Ok
Jm
January 27th, 2013
9:36 am
I think Woodward is a bit of a con
Jm
January 27th, 2013
9:50 am
Hillary: Obama is retreating from the world and turning it over to al Qaeda
indigo
January 27th, 2013
9:51 am
Get Real – 9:31
It may be that for many, our “improving economy” is a cruel joke and employment is next to impossible to find.
It may be, contrary to what you seem to think, that most of the people on food stamps do NOT like it and would gladly get a decent paying job, if they could find one.
indigo
January 27th, 2013
9:54 am
Stevie Ray – 9:10
No. I’m saying the media has to appeal to the general public, and a substantial number of the public likes this kind of trash news.
And, I’m betting that most of them are Republicans. That would certainly explaing the quality of their elected politicians.
Jm
January 27th, 2013
9:55 am
Hillary’s 2016 problem will be: who wants to elect a democrat after a democrat royally screws up this country?
She may win anyway tho
wet wiccan
January 27th, 2013
10:03 am
Well, I’m a barrel of laughs,
with my carbine on
I keep ‘em hoppin’,
till my ammunition’s gone.
But I’m still not happy,
I feel like
there’s something wrong.
I got the revolution blues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZilu4ApCI0
JamVet - Not a member of the Stupid, Backward and Insulting Party.
January 27th, 2013
10:05 am
The answer to that question at 9:55?
Five words.
The Bush Reign of Error.
You bungling, globally cooled nutjobs had your chance and you screwed up everything. Across the board. From beginning to end. Deadly botched invasions of the wrong country. An economic implosion that tried to rival the Great Depression. And on and on and on.
Now you get to sit on the sidelines and whine and threaten the republic with your second amendment remedies.
But who takes you seriously?
barking frog
January 27th, 2013
10:28 am
Stevie Ray
Many are taking an upfront loss to buy our bonds. Does that sound like
no confidence in our future?
td
January 27th, 2013
10:31 am
Jay
January 27th, 2013
6:21 am
Yes, td, it can happen under the current electoral system, as it did in 2000.
The intent of this new plan is to try to encourage it to happen, and on a larger scale. When I ran the numbers earlier, they show that Romney might have won in 2012 despite losing the popular vote 51-47, which is a pretty large margin.
If you think the country is divided today with a lack of trust in the system, consciously creating that kind of system will make it much much worse.
51-47 in rare numbers is 6 million more votes nationwide out of a country of 350 million. Another way of saying this is that the difference is the number of votes received by the President received in Boston, Phil and NY and this is exactly the reason the founders placed the electoral college in the Constitution to stop the large urban centers from controlling who is elected President.
There was never any intent of the President winning elections on a popular vote. Our system was originally set up for the House of Representatives to represent the people, The Senate to represent the interest of the state and the President was to represent our country around the world and to make sure the will of the Congress was implemented. The Judicial branch was set up to make sure the states played fair with each other and to make sure the individual rights of the people were not infringed.
As far as divided nation, it is up to you (the media) for one to tell the people the truth as to what the original intent of our form of government is and stopped this myth about everyones vote counts exactly the same and that we directly elect our President.
indigo
January 27th, 2013
11:11 am
td – 10:31
Do you have the foresight to see that if Republicans try to re-arrange things so that, most times, the majority of popular votes don’t elect the president, the people will demand that “we directly elect our President”?
Brosephus™
January 27th, 2013
11:40 am
Since we have established that electors vote for the President and not the people, then what is the big deal the progressives are making about states changing the way their electors are vote in the college?
The big deal that “I” see (can’t answer for your progressives) is that the Republicans see they can’t win based on peddling the message or “ideals” that they claim that Americans share with them. They have been body checked into the glass twice by a Socialist, Marxist, Kenyan, anti-Colonial, Kenyesian, Leftist, “super Liberal” President in two straight elections.
If this were something that the GOP thought was something that would benefit America and not the GOP, they would be pushing for this plan in the 24-30 states they control legislatures and/or governorships. The fact that they are targeting specific battle states where they’ve had their butts handed to them shows that this idea is nothing more than a blatant attempt to change the rules of the game to benefit them on a national level.
td
January 27th, 2013
11:47 am
indigo
January 27th, 2013
11:11 am
td – 10:31
Do you have the foresight to see that if Republicans try to re-arrange things so that, most times, the majority of popular votes don’t elect the president, the people will demand that “we directly elect our President”?
The Amend the Constitution it takes 66% of each house of congress and 75% of the states to pass an amendment. Can you name how many of the 40 least populated states are going to voluntarily give more power to the largest 10 states.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 27th, 2013
11:48 am
Well, the Rev. Postlewaite is no Rev. Jim Bob Buice, but sometimes he can preach a pretty good sermon. I only dozed off a couple times this morning.
Like I said before about this Electoral Colledge thing, things is looking up. I’m sick of having my life run by people that get elected just because they get the most votes. If there’s people that’s too ignorant to vote for the Republican canadate, maybe we need to do it a different way so the right person can get to be President. Course, we could expect to hear howling from the libruls that would be much worse than the howling after the Supreme Court picked Bush to be President.
Just thought I’d let y’all know I’m taking the missus to Ryans today so if you go there be mighty careful about where you put your fingers around the serving line. The missus gets in a stabbing mood when she’s piling food on her plate.
Have a good Sabbath everybody.
Brosephus™
January 27th, 2013
11:50 am
Jay
If you’re still around, here’s something to remind you of your old beat.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/27/us-usa-nevada-idUSBRE90Q08620130127?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563