Voter Suppresion or Disfranchisement, call it what you will.

You engage in childish insults for the same reason that farmerman engages in childish insults.

Neither one of you are capable of making an intelligent argument.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

My IQ is 170,

Which is something stupid people say.

It's something only stupid people say.

Intelligent people never need to talk about their IQs, they don't have to, people can tell. Take Fresco, it's clear he's very intelligent, his posts say as much and he never talks about his IQ.

You're like his opposite, you constantly talk about your IQ whilst posting a load of moronic drivel.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Which is something stupid people say.
It's something only stupid people say.

Wrong . It's something that people with a 170 IQ say.

Stupid people act like you and farmerman and spout nothing but name-calling.

izzythepush wrote:

Intelligent people never need to talk about their IQs, they don't have to, people can tell.

What's this need nonsense you are babbling about? I'm not the person who raised the subject of my superior intelligence.

izzythepush wrote:

Take Fresco, it's clear he's very intelligent, his posts say as much and he never talks about his IQ.

He might discuss it if you kept raising the subject with him over and over again.

izzythepush wrote:

You're like his opposite, you constantly talk about your IQ

Again, I'm not the person who raised the issue of my superior intelligence.

izzythepush wrote:

whilst posting a load of moronic drivel.

Your inability to point out anything that I am wrong about shows otherwise.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Ozzy nailed you to the cross as noted by your excessive posts like your hero Trump,

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

A single reply to every attack isn't excessive.

And you guys' childish name-calling is hardly "nailing me to a cross". That's just absurd.

0 Replies

The very basis for the "Winner take all" in the tally of electoral votes, actually began as an appeasement gesture that followed the "selection" of John Q Adams . Today, with all the available split second technology available, and proportional assignment even a situation that caused the tie up of that, and several later elections (including 2000) could not have happened. You can do the math. "Protecting the selection process" by diddling with something that was NOT envisioned by the framers is a long term strategy imposed on us by the then party in power , and preserved by the GOP by dealing with redistricting via Gerrymander.

Approving a "colonial style" amendment that was sitting in the hopper since 1789 is not only laughable but shows a complete lack of knowledge of history.

NOW, I expect that several of the members who actually believe in keeping the amendment out of play will seek out information contrary to what Ive stated above because its deemed favorable to the MURDOCHIAN news world. Murdochs are like the Borg,
worker ants of their plutocrats, anti democracy, and fascistii.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm trying to remember the name of a silent movie I think from the 1920's....I think it was the German film Metropolis........Watching that film in this century is much more frightening than it was in the 1970's. Remember when it seemed silly that people envisioned such a bleak future???? Me too, it just isn't a silly notion any longer,

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Approving a "colonial style" amendment that was sitting in the hopper since 1789 is not only laughable

If you don't want to solve the disparity between large and small states in the electoral college, that's fine with me. I'm not at all bothered by the disparity. Much ado about nothing.

farmerman wrote:

but shows a complete lack of knowledge of history.

Wrong again. It shows nothing of the sort.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

why not try to argue your "beliefs"with some facts and evidence rather than mere gainsay and childish aspersion. As I said three times (and you ignore because you have nothing with which to counter my evidence), the collection of voters rights and vote tally have been changed several times and have rendered your suggested Constitutional Amendment extinct. Why not explain what the 12th Amendment is about when it comes to certain items of the fed election process and the election of such offices as the VICE PRESIDENT.

I think you just Google up some **** and then fail to understand what it was youve just quoted. I think Ive forgotten more history than you think you know, and I dont make believe Im any kind of expert. I just love American SCholar , it does some great historical Analyses and without sounding pompous .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

why not try to argue your "beliefs"with some facts and evidence rather than mere gainsay and childish aspersion.

I always argue my beliefs with facts and evidence. It is dishonorable to suggest otherwise.

farmerman wrote:

As I said three times (and you ignore because you have nothing with which to counter my evidence), the collection of voters rights and vote tally have been changed several times an have rendered your suggested Constitutional Amendment extinct.

You offer no evidence. You offer nothing but childish name-calling.

Nothing has rendered the Apportionment Amendment extinct. It still awaits ratification.

farmerman wrote:

Why not explain what the 12th Amendment is about when it comes to certain items of the fed election process and the election of such offices as the VICE PRESIDENT.

Because it's not relevant to my point.

farmerman wrote:

I think you just Google up some **** and then fail to understand what it was youve just quoted. I think Ive forgotten more history than you think you know, and I dont make believe Im any kind of expert.

You should really leave the thinking to me.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I always argue my beliefs with facts and evidence. It is dishonorable to suggest otherwise.

Only delusional folks sound like that. Are you delusional?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Only delusional folks sound like that.

That is incorrect. Anyone who defends themselves from untrue accusations sounds that way.

farmerman wrote:

Are you delusional?

Your inability to point out anything that I am wrong about shows that I am not.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Is this a quiz????? How many points???

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

No. It's just a pointless progressive name-calling tantrum.

It's been some time since we've had progressives who could do anything more than spout name-calling.

I guess it's gratifying for conservatives to be the last people standing on the battlefield of facts and logic. The conversation can get a bit tedious though without a competent opponent to argue with.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Ive eviscerated your argument by using specific points of history, like ratification of the 12th Amendment(12th amendment "fixed" the math errors that would have occured in th Apportionment amendment) and included other "tangential" things like WHEN th vice president was even "on a ticket" . You fail to understand their significance since the 12th Amendment and changes in the voter laws (BY STATUTE rather than amendments to the Constitution), negated the 1789 amendment. Besides, there are a few more states in the UNION than there were then, so ratification would require How many more states???

I can understand why you wish to avoid any discussion of the 12th, since it blows any argument youve posted out of the water.
You merely post drivel so that you could fool folks into thinking you are a person of exceptional perspicacity. From the responses Ive seen, you didnt fool anyone.

There are quite a few conservatives that post facts and develop good arguments. Its just that you aint one of them.

1 Reply

izzythepush wrote:

Just because a stupid person thinks an intelligent acts a certain way doesn't make it so.
When a stupid person insists that is the case, they're just reemphasising their own stupidity.

Case in point: Your nonsense about how you believe intelligent people act.

izzythepush wrote:

That's what you're doing, and it's unnecessary.

Wrong. It's what you're doing.

izzythepush wrote:

It's public knowledge that you're the stupidest person on A2K by a mile. It's not like there's not a lot of competition out there either.

Wrong. The only stupid people here are the ones who engage in name-calling instead of making intelligent arguments. That'd be you, not me. I'm one of the people who make intelligent arguments.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ive eviscerated your argument by using specific points of history, like ratification of the 12th Amendment(12th amendment "fixed" the math errors that would have occured in th Apportionment amendment) and included other "tangential" things like WHEN th vice president was even "on a ticket".

Your babbling about irrelevant trivia does not impact my argument in any way.

farmerman wrote:

You fail to understand their significance since the 12th Amendment and changes in the voter laws (BY STATUTE rather than amendments to the Constitution), negated the 1789 amendment.

The 12th Amendment does not impact the Apportionment Amendment in any way.

If a statute were to conflict with a constitutional amendment in any way, that statute would be null and void.

farmerman wrote:

I can understand why you wish to avoid any discussion of the 12th, since it blows any argument youve posted out of the water.

The 12th Amendment does not harm my argument in any way.

farmerman wrote:

You merely post drivel so that you could fool folks into thinking you are a person of exceptional perspicacity. From the responses Ive seen, you didnt fool anyone.

The fact that you are not capable of comprehending something does not make it drivel.

I have no need to fool anyone. My IQ is 170. That's why I post intelligent arguments instead of childish name-calling like you do.

farmerman wrote:

There are quite a few conservatives that post facts and develop good arguments. Its just that you aint one of them.

Funny how you are incapable of challenging my supposedly-bad arguments.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

My New Year's resolution is to stop playing Doolittle.

Go grunt somewhere else.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

See. All you offer is childish insults. You never present any intelligent arguments.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

All you can do is go round in circles repeating yourself ad nauseam with your limited vocabulary and understanding.

Seriously, that is all you do, and all you have done since I joined A2K. That's why I'm not talking to you any more, because it's so incredibly dull.

1 Reply

Voter Suppresion or Disfranchisement, call it what you will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know