From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #343 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Monday, December 24 2001 Volume 05 : Number 343 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: Ass fuck pictures 2340 ["ironcladWHOO!!" ] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point ["Chris K @*_*@" ] Re: his point ["Chris K @*_*@" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Dec 2001 00:17:32 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point "Josh Drury" wrote in <9vtd85$jos$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>: >Good point. If I may take it one step further, they not only focus >mainly on the most populous states but specifically on the most populous >areas of those states. You'll see candidates campaign no doubt in L.A., >NYC, Detroit, Houston, etc., and occasionally in some carefully selected >Anytown, USA, but certainly not in every town. Should the electoral >college break things down further, like by county? No, there are still >regional discrepancies. How about taking it to the extreme, and have >every single person represented? I have a great idea, also. For those of you who support the United Nations, let's get rid of each country's ability to cast votes in the General Assembly. Instead, let's have each person in the entire world cast a vote for UN Secretary General. I'm sorry for my facetiousness, but I'm trying to make a point. The point is that the United Nations represents the collection of many countries, and not necessarily each individual person in those countries. Just as the General Assembly of the UN represents "Nations," the government of the US represents "States." Unfortunately, in the past hundred years, our federal government has moved away from being federal, and more towards being national, which is I think is why many people have become disillusioned with federalist ideas (and it's not their fault because, let's face it, our country has been moving away from that). This doesn't mean, however, that we need to weaken our government any more than we already have. I think that in order to understand my philosophy on this subject (which really isn't mine at all, but rather that of the framers of the Constitution), you have to understand that the intent of the federal government was not to represent PEOPLE, but to represent STATES. Of course, you are welcome to disagree with that, as many people at the time did as well. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:08:47 GMT From: "ironcladWHOO!!" Subject: Re: Ass fuck pictures 2340 Some spammer spewed forth the following: > http://home.wanadoo.nl/cap/ > 100% FREE SEX MOVIES! Man, did you ever pick the right group to promote your ass fuck pictures in! I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one on the group looking for ass fuck pictures! ASS FUCK! WOO! :) - -- ironcladWHOO!! "I am made from the dust of the stars And the oceans flow in my veins." - Rush ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 2001 10:48:01 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > AJ, > > You are wrong about the candidates "focusing" on certain states -- there is > a reason why candidates do a whirlwind tour of the country in their last > days before the election. Eric, he's right. Unless ... you don't count Montana, Wyoming, Alaska and Hawaii as states. I happen to live in one of the states that they thought was going to be swing. I guess you totally missed all the campaign converage, where they used such terms because they thought the outcome of that state was undecided. To already put states into won and lost columns before the election, allows candidates to focus directly on which states would be swing states. The fact that you put stats into these categories allows you to "focus" on states you could win. This is what the electoral college system does for you as a candidate. It allows you to just throw out the votes of a state if it is a foregone conclusion that you're going to lose in that state and focus on the votes of another state which is more in jeopardy. (how much of gore and lieberman did you see in texas? not a lot, because texas's outcome was not in jeopardy. how much of bush did i get to see in pennsylvania? a whole hell of a lot, cause they thought they could take the state). "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 2001 11:04:00 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > Vicki Cain wrote in <3C1E08B0.D78280F3@yale.edu>: > >Then, when Ms. Bush appealed to our sympathies about all > >the children in Afghanistan without proper health care, I was fuming! > >There are currently *millions* of children in this country who have no > >health insurance, and her husband is doing absolutely nothing about > >that. Also, if he had his way, I'm sure he'd cut back the funds that are > >currently allowed even more. > > Well, I have news for Mrs. Bush -- it is not our responsibility to provide > health care for the children in Afghanistan, and it's not our government's > responsibility to provide health care for the children here either. For the > sake of the welfare of our children, hopefully it never will be. (You can > tell that to Mrs. Clinton, as well). Yea, cause lord knows we want to have the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation. We love spiring out of control health care costs. We *love* our HMOs. You know, those organisations that we cannot sue and have almost no recourse if they happen to pull care for a critical treatment (or if they deem it experimental). We *love* having our health care decisions made by businessmen. > >I've got news for you...they don't care now. > > > >The problem I have with the system is that it's a weighted system. A > >vote in California (55 electoral votes) doesn't have the same amount of > >weight as the weight of someone in, say, Wyoming (3 electoral votes). A > >single vote in Wyoming has much more power to turn the state over to one > >candidate or the other than a single vote in California. And that's > >wrong. > > But keep in mind that that state's electoral votes are "weighted" just as > well; Wyoming's votes are thus less likely to influence the final election > results. If you actually did some math, you'd see that a state that if you take 2 electoral votes from california and two from alaska, you'd see the relative skew is much higher for alaska than it is for california (i.e. in lamens turns, its not an even weight). If you still aren't convinced, see my post in how if you removed the weight of senator representation from the electoral college and retabulated the election based solely on the house reps. that gore wins by 7 votes (in lamens terms, by 7 small states). This overal weight in the election translates into an uneven amount of weight by vote per state. In some states your vote is worth less than 1 (i.e. it is not 1 person 1 vote, its one person .7 vote (or something), and in other states its 1 person 1.2 votes). Why should someone in Utah have more of a say about the president than me because I live in Pennsylvania? > >In fact, I'd be willing to think that if we eliminated the electoral > >system, that the candidates would actually be *more* concerned with the > >votes in the less-populated states because single votes do add up. > > Nah. Al Gore would have spent all of the end of his campaign in California, > where the big votes are. It would have been poor campaign strategy to do > anything less. Yea, because that makes sense. California alone can win someone an election. > It seems to me it would be no different gathering the electoral votes from > the many small states than it would be gathering the individual votes from > the many small states. So, what you're saying here is that individual votes and electoral vote gathering would result in no difference in campaign strategy? Interesting argument strategy for someone defending the electoral college saying essentially, if it wasn't there, elections would be the same. So, why bother having it if there is no benefit? Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 21:28:42 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: his point Eric wrote: > Vicki Cain wrote: > > >Then, when Ms. Bush appealed to our sympathies about all > >the children in Afghanistan without proper health care, I was fuming! > >There are currently *millions* of children in this country > >who have no > >health insurance, and her husband is doing absolutely nothing about > >that. Also, if he had his way, I'm sure he'd cut back the > >funds that are > >currently allowed even more. > > Well, I have news for Mrs. Bush -- it is not our > responsibility to provide > health care for the children in Afghanistan, and it's > not our government's > responsibility to provide health care for the children > here either. For the > sake of the welfare of our children, hopefully it never > will be. When you use "our" are you talking Federal Government or State government? Some states have a special program for those children who do not have health insurance through their parent(s) like the program Child Health Plus. (where the state helps to pay for the insurance for the child.) I know you are for state's rights so I'm assuming you mean Federal Government doesn't supply health care for the children. > (You can tell that to Mrs. Clinton, as well). Why don't you write her a letter then (and cc: Mrs. Bush)? I think it would sound weird if us as a NG went up to Mrs. Clinton and Bush and said "Well eric said..." and you weren't there to participate. Christine. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:26:33 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: his point wild Bill wrote: > Yea, cause lord knows we want to have the highest infant mortality > rate of any industrialized nation. We love spiring out of control > health care costs. We *love* our HMOs. You know, those organisations > that we cannot sue and have almost no recourse if they happen to pull > care for a critical treatment (or if they deem it experimental). We > *love* having our health care decisions made by businessmen. Yes, and we love the fact that the chairman and chief executive of a financial institution in Buffalo is on the task force for the health care system in the region. So, what does a chairman and chief executive of a bank know about health care unless it's all about the money and not about taking care of people & their illnesses. Why aren't there any doctors or other medical personnel on this task force? All of them are businessmen or politicians. Christine. ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #343 ********************************************