Let's get rid of the Electoral College

If she is a she it will demonstrate conclusively that the literary expertise on here has gone woefully uni-sex. My reputation is at stake.

No bloke would use a username like Fountofwisdom. Surely? And there are other clues. Only Herman Kahn claimed an IQ like FoW has claimed. There are no IQ measurement testers with an IQ approaching 160. She was being ironic.

The same could be argued about Iraq: Americans seem very keen on democracy there, but not at home. To show how idiotic you are.
The topic for discussion is should EC go.
I discuss this, and you go all defensive about it.
I'm only pointing out that the American system is a shambles, produces bad leaders, democracy is a good thing and the system takes to long. And that the American system needs to change.
You don't get that do you. Or the concept of debate.

A stupid assertion: I have never argued against one man one vote. I have argued in favour of change. You are spouting idiocy, satans anus

You may be correct--you can be assured i don't give a rat's ass. Regardless of the alleged gender, it's a hateful thing, with a horrible obsession.

bookmark...

Lets see: one person one vote. It doesnt need much arranging does it. Exactly the same as the system that exists now, but a total is taken of votes for each candidate.
I'd set a limit on the time an election takes. six weeks seems more than enough.
The parties can pick the candidates my any means they want. I suggest if they had the choice they wouldnt use the daft primary system. It adds nothing.
I mean democracy is so simple. The Americans are arguing that the system is good because it produces undemocratic results. The constitution wants government by the people for the people, then has a system that prevents this.
Americans are claiming there system is almost impossible to change: as tho that were a good thing.

So American: a group of people get together and not discuss things. Congratulate eachother on their insularity and ignorance. Offer no argument.
I know set at zero has no views and cant argue cogently. And makes idiotic claims.

From your posts, Wisdom,
I surmise that u r a very young and very emotional girl; about 14 ?

On which I.Q. test to u claim to have achieved your score of "160" ?





David

I don't believe in IQ testing so I won't push it. Even tho I am officially a genius. I told mensa (the british organisation) to shove it. I consider that an intelligent response. I notice Set tantrum can only reply he doesnt care. He seems to feel that the only reason to debate is to give his own opinion. When he is wrong he just sulks. Pathetic.
My argument is that a simple system, that is understood by all and gives everybody a fair and equal say is the best one.
We the people. All of them.
If someone in say D.C. argues that they shouldnt vote as it is going to go democrat so why bother, then who could Argue. Or a republican in Oklahoma.
I am arguing for democracy. No taxation without representation. There was a time when Americans would have fought for that.

Mensa is an organisation that only people who have an IQ of 140 plus can join. They gave me an entrance test. I passed it. Thought better of joining. One of those "Boring things to do on a Wednesday idea. Anyone with an IQ of 160 can consider themselves a genius. Apparently. The argument wasn't wheter I was bright, but how Americans feel a system that they think no one understands constitutes a Democracy.
I don't believe in God but I have been to church. Everyone does stuff. Like joining a gym but not going to it.

I would give a rat's ass myself if my literary detection equipment couldn't distinguish the genders.

But what makes her a "hateful thing, with a horrible obsession"? Is Set justifying those words simply because he is used to the comforts of Christianised woman which, by his own stated principles ought to be eradicated.

FoW might be said to be the real deal for un-Christianised femininity. An example of what will become the norm in an atheistic world. What Spengler called herrin morale following Ibsen Woman, Shaw's Major Barbara treatment, feminism and all the way to SCUM.

I have met a few of the milder forms.

When the atheist project of the anti-IDers bears its logical fruit, the destruction of the patriarchy, that will be all there is for the young lads of the future to deal with. And it is on their behalf that I battle it out and I consider my opponents to be betrayers of my gender and those men who sit on their hands and do nothing to be nonentities. A case can be made for betraying my gender.

Look at the recent election. 4 women were constantly in the news. Mr Nixon was brought down by machismo. Mr Clinton almost so by the stains on a frock. Mr Spitzer by a power which we hardly dare speak of except in the abstract. Harold Macmillan by two good time girls. Gary Hart. Our Chief of the General Staff by a real cracker a third his age.

Ted Hughes writes Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being. Germaine Greer, now a professor and regular TV pundit, said that all men are rapists. A feminist takeover of a newspaper produced a headline Romance is Rape. There's a Sec of State who hasn't the first idea. There's a financial crisis caused by "overspend". Media is a feminist project for obvious reasons. Philip Larkin, Kingsley Amis and Robert Conquest take up wanking. Robert de Niro approves in public. Napoleon says "Not tonight Josephine." Madame de Pompadour ruined France.

Sheesh- I could go on all day. How about Poppea Sabina? 600 asses for a bath. She had delicate skin you see. Had to be shifted back and forth as her whims dictated. Try shifting 600 asses to Ostia and back for a weekender. Augustus exiles his own female relatives. Ovid catches the draught. Ulysses has himself tied up. Nancy Mitford has to be dragged from the lecturn when she starts her Bible reading at a wedding in the Song of Solomon. Then there's Mrs Thatcher who fixed up every young mother with a free house plus other benefits. No husband needed. Mike Tyson. Sperm banks. A divorced millionaire works it out at £47,000 a shag. Dylan does his alimony tour. (All his money). Beauty industry in the trillions and auto workers on the bones of their arse. Cynthia Payne looks very "knowing" when interviewed about Max Mosely's weaknesses. Compensation for a goosing behind the filing cabinet ten times that for injured soldiers. And that Argive Helen eh?

And Set doesn't give a rat's ass. Well-he woudn't would he? as Mandy Rice Davis might have said. Set has the real deal on Ignore. Good for him. No trench warfare for Set. He's a history expert.

Listen FoW--I'm going to put you back in the box. I'm not hiding out reassuring myself with assertions and sulks. I've met a few Yorkshire lasses. They require strong handling for their own good.

The queues have nothing whatever to do with the Electoral College. All other elections, save the one for President, are conducted on a one person/one vote basis. There are always queues. Long waiting lines are an issue completely separate from the one at hand and irrelevant to this discussion.

Setanta isn't an expert: either in history or anything else: I never put anyone on ignore. I can stand up for myself. I find blokes who cant stand up for themselves floppy and unsatisfying. It seems set shrinks from debate.
Believing women should be oppressed because you fear them is small minded. It is a small point.
Clinton wasn't bought down by Monica. He had a good woman behind him. Someone who forgave his lies.

Technically I agree. However, I think it shows how much priority is given to democracy. I can think of no other industrialised country where queue-ing to vote is tolerated. I believe it is a symptom of a deeper malaise. The queueing wouldn't be tolerated at McDonald's. Hamburger or Democracy: which would you consider more important?
I think it is a deliberate attempt to Unconstiutionally (Amendment on barring disenfranchisement on racial grounds 26th I think) prevent people from their lawful right to vote.
My argument with an unfair system is that people who are disadvantaged by it get really annoyed. They have a right to be. No Taxation without representation.

Fountofwisdom wrote:





Serious question, Fount: Why would a guy with an IQ even approaching 160...be suckered into making a foolish generalization like this???

I'm not saying you don't have the 160; I have no idea of how intelligent you are. All I can do is make estimates and guesses based on what you write here.

The quoted paragraph just doesn't seem to be the product of an intelligent person at all.

Look Andy. Nothing is irrelevant when you're dealing with one of these uppity females. They want a people election because they know that a female candidate will piss it. Mrs Palin's poseidon(?) like trajectory was a trial run. The next one won't put her foot in it 10 times a minute. They don't want a bunch of guys on the golf course or in smoke-filled rooms, if you will forgive my anachronism, coming between their candidate and the people. The people have been conditioned by Ladymedia. They're in the bag. Henpecked males write their scripts. The scumbags. Bloody blacklegs.

Ever since uppity ladies appeared in national life as a force to be reckoned with, and certainly not to be underestimated, which is root and branch male chauvinism, sexist to a "T", smoking, drinking, gambling, fighting and lounging about, like in Lucky ol' Sun, have become more and more to be frowned upon and studied and found wanting and declared something to be really, really something to be frowned upon. When in office it will be more than just frowned upon. Have you not noticed the increasing number of men who don't smoke, don't drink, don't gamble, don't fight and who spend all their leisure hours running around like a blue arsed fly. Isn't that what the Dick van Dyke Show was all about?

Saying that their pronouncements are irrelevant is tantamount to putting them on Ignore and encouraging the rest of us to do the same. That's exactly what they want. Men out of the discussion. Set's out--he doesn't give a rat's ass. He thinks that wins him the argument and enables him to bestride the intellectual high ground. Rockie is on bookmark. A front row seat.

It's no good taking the piss out of her IQ claim. Who are men to determine the IQ of ladies? I imagine Fountie's entrance exam marker didn't know what to make of her productions and did what all examiners do in that situation and gave her an alpha. It's less risky to reputations you see. Sometimes indecipherable nonsense turns out to be a work of genius and having given it a gamma can damage that reputation. And what the hell anyway--who cares what her ******* IQ is--and has her cheque cleared?

If she says her IQ is 160 there it is in black and white. Just like all the insults I have had thrown at me. They were all in black and white. It behoves you to believe Fountie's black and whites if you believed those insults. Otherwise you are picking and choosing which black and whites to go by and that's most unscientific. What she means is that she wants to be treated as if she has an IQ of 160 because she's fed up of being treated like a silly moo. It's an invitation. Stendhal had a method for dealing with ladies of this ilk but it's no good putting it on here because it went the way smoking and drinking etc are heading. Pubs being demolished. Oh- my eyes well up from rubbing this onion in them.

And it is ungallant to question what a Lady says. Have you not read the rules in the Court of Love? I am quite satisfied in my own mind that Fountie's IQ is as she says it is.

We know that the queues have nothing to do with the EC. Has the EC anything to do with the EC? These are human organisms not clockwork oranges. Women have an extreme distaste for queues. Especially those with an IQ of 160. They are quite impatient. And intolerant. Look how she deals with Set. I mean to say--don't you think it disrespectful. A fast talking floozie addressing a mature man of distinction and perspicacity. It's almost as arrogant as that shown by the female bird of paradise towards her doting would-be lover. Why does he not just jump on her and give her one like cocks do with hens? You won't see a rooster gardening. Every class of science students should be shown the bird of paradise and the hen pen courtship ritual movies and asked to write an essay speculating on the mysterious ways of evolution. After all- the creatures are actually living fossils.

The scientific problem with it is that the bird of paradise is in the wild and the hen pen is domesticated, a sort of laboratory, so it's not a valid comparison. The rooster's behaviour may have been conditioned by domestication. They kids would know more science if they could be shown that invalidation than anything I can conceive of in one lesson. And follow up some of the avenues it opens up.

On the evidence one might speculate gently that the closer we get to the bird of paradise situation the wilder we will get. And ladies with IQs of 160 are quite exotic creatures too.

I accept your criticism: However read the posts I am replying too: no logical content. I have found this with all the Americans on here. Straight to abuse. Refuse to address any point made.
A lot of academics are bullied by this: if I have to shout before I am heard then so be it. Here's a challenge for you: find just one American who hasn't resorted to abuse or has addressed one point made.
Things are bad when OMsigDavid is the most rational debater.

Some interesting points you made there. Consider it from my point of view. I am proposing democracy. Its neither a difficult concept or a hard one to understand.
Here is an allegory: you are queue-ing for a pint. Someone shouts out last orders. You are thrown out of the pub without drinking.
You are told the queue is irrelevant because you have a right to buy a pint.

This is what happens. people turn up to vote. They are told they can't. Its only irrelevant if you live in Set aunties world, where people don't mess up.