NCclimber

True - this whole discussion is based on assumptions. That doesn't change the fact that my explanation makes sense and your attempted rebuttal was just plain stupid.

Nice retreat. Simply put, party membership in the US isn't a big deal. All you have to do fill out a form and you're in. Quit trying to make such a big hubbub about it. Only party I ever joined had dues payable. How irrelevant. Now, how about answering my previous questions.

Follow the money. If working harder and producing more gas cuts into your profits, why would you do it? That supposes that working harder and producing more gas would cut into your profits. Here - let me put it so might understand it. If a refinery is operating at 50% capacity and they're making 20 cents net profit for each gallon they produce, do you think they'll make more or less money if they raise production to 80% of capacity? Assuming something there, Chief! Reminds me of Chrysler policy before the Iacocca days - take a small loss on every car built, but make up for it in volume. That might work, Chief, if loss and profit were synonyms. But they're not, kind of like a dog's tail isn't a fifth leg. You're a professor of graduate level physics, right?

Yeah, this is a better Lincoln quote (taken from the Lincoln Library): One of Lincoln's favorite questions for his sons was, "How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?" His sons answered "Five!" But Lincoln always told them, "No, it would have only four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg." And that applies to so many of your analogies. I really liked your use of iPhones to explain the current rise of hangman nooses being used as expressions of racism.

Follow the money. If working harder and producing more gas cuts into your profits, why would you do it? That supposes that working harder and producing more gas would cut into your profits. Here - let me put it so might understand it. If a refinery is operating at 50% capacity and they're making 20 cents net profit for each gallon they produce, do you think they'll make more or less money if they raise production to 80% of capacity?

Nice retreat. Simply put, party membership in the US isn't a big deal. All you have to do fill out a form and you're in. Quit trying to make such a big hubbub about it.

Could you give us a news source on this topic? I looked around and didn't find anything about your claims.

Well, if you're going to make a stink about who asked first, my answers are no and no. Your turn. I'm really interested in hearing how you think requiring people to pay money to vote in primaries is a good thing, especially considering the 24th Amendment was passed to prevent that very thing.

As I've already said, I don't know the rationale behind each states' election laws. Perhaps you, the learned Dr. PhD, could explain it to me. But before you do that, how about answering the four questions in my previous post???

It's all about who has the most money. Be careful about voicing any objections about the amount of money being given to candidates. Some around here might accuse you of pissing all over the First Amendment.

Quit calling it MY party. It is NOT my party. Yep. That's it. It's not about what is the right thing, it's about winning or losing. And we have a winner, folks.

Jesus tittyfucking christ, talk about the most retarded argument I've ever heard in my life! Everybody listen up, people using cellphones turned Richards into the monster he is today. He had NO choice! Those crazy kids and their newfangled telephones! Nobody "made" you resort to anything. There are always going to be assholes that you'll have to deal with in life. Punishing all cell phone users because you can't make yourself happy is like me running around and hitting everybody named Dick with a baseball bat because I think they'll be cranky. I'm just nipping the problem in the bud, aren't I. Your cantankerous nature is the part that's incompatible with today's society. .jim Dear Moderators, Are these kinds of posts now acceptable?

Here you go. Your own words. What's your point?

Kind of like a poll tax. Do you approve of non-citizens voting in the general election? Do you approve of non-stockholders voting in a corporation ballot? What does this have to do with requiring money to be paid in order to vote in a primary? I have no idea why some States don't require party affiliation to vote in that party's primary. What does that have to do with you wanting a "pay to vote" set up, in order to vote in a primary? Are you familiar with the 24th Amendment? Do you know what it was about?

I did? Where? Streeeetch!!! Funny, I was just talking about "compressing" the primary and general election cycles. And I was just voicing my preference, not proposing laws requiring it.

Kind of like a poll tax.

Well, since you seem to think you know all about it, explain how my voicing a preference for a shorter election cycle goes beyond McCain-Feingold and complete pisses on the 1st Amendment? You mean they can't say anything during an election cycle? How's the view up on that horse?

That's just another example of the free market at work. You're not against market driven politics are you Yeah. Let's throw out all election laws. Just make it one giant free for all. Campaign limits? Fuck that. Lobbying Reform? Quit whining all you poor people. Laizzes Faire politics should be decide. and while we're at it, let's tell the courts to mind their own business and quit trying to decide what is or is not an unfair trade pratice. DURRR

So your solution would be to go beyond McCain-Feingold and complete piss on the 1st Amendment? You're talking about prior restraint - and how do you distinguish between regular politicking and running for president? You can't. You infer quite a bit. Just looking (perhaps too hard) for something to bitch about? How much clearer could you write "no one could campaign?" Did you approve of McCain-Feingold's prohibitions too? I was just offering my opinion - that I would prefer to have an election cycle that only lasted seven or eight months. How is that going "beyond McCain-Feingold and complete piss on the 1st Amendment"? Perhaps I should have said "would" instead of "could. I was just talking about how I'd like it to be, not about any hard and fast laws. As far as McCain-Feingold is concerned, I don't buy into charge that placing limits on campaign finance is "pissing on the 1st Amendment". I mean, it's not like the candidates are prohibited from getting their message out. They just might have some limitations of over-saturating the public with that message. and let's be honest, most of their messages aren't about a given platform, they're about appealling to a base level of emotionalism. Me - I'm fed up campaigns and debates going on for 12 months before the first primary vote is cast... and then going on for another 10 months. These politicians remind me of the Door-to-Door Salesman on Pee Wee's Playhouse.

There you go.

Two thirds of which are Red states. Who'd a thunk?

I just googled "Platt amendment of 1901". The first 3 or 4 links all said the same thing,... that FDR cancelled the agreement as part of his "Good Neighbor" policy. We did retain the lease (in perpetuity) for Guantanamo Bay, though.

Thanks for such a well formed post. I do have one question. Wasn't the Platt Amendment of 1901 repealed in 1934, making claims about it's enforcement in 1959 irrelevant?

LOL You talk about the "hysterics that extremists" are fond of and go paint a dishonest picture of AGW skeptics. Ironic.

Do you also praise Mussolini for making the trains run on time? Using herring for troll bait? Tsk, tsk You guys crack me up.