Displaying 1,111 To 1,140 Of 1,300 Comments Two great ones. Hey, things are really humping now, eh? If only we could stop bitching about Huff and cut back on the pet talk. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 6:12 pm Gringo is the undigested peanuts in my bowel movements. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 6:10 pm I love Coyote. She has declared Hume, JamesR and myself the “leaders” at Huff. Were you there during the primaries? If you were, you would see how silly that is. But the three of us had pretty much the same view on the Gaza incursion. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 6:09 pm You de man, Kid. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 5:58 pm KK. Did this threat occur here or at Huff? Drop me an e-mail at kevenyeay@yahoo.com. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 5:57 pm That is called lurking. And if that mangy dirt ball is reading this, I just want her to know that I detest her. Opps. A bit hostile. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 5:55 pm Damn. That’s good. Are you the one that told Wilt that he would have a good time over here? Because I am not sure he did. Hehehhehhehehehehee » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 5:54 pm Sounds a plan! My Dem Club’s executive board is meeting tonight, and I’ll personally be limited on how much time I can put in coxing people over, and especially will not be able to do much before 9pm. I’ll do my bit, but I hope y’all will be able to pick up the slack. This will take four to six weeks to get rolling fully, so please don’t expect to see huge results instantly. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 5, 2009 @ 8:12 am That is not quite a “porn” shot. Infantile? Yes. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 10:01 pm Too late! » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 9:37 pm I hate him more than you do. So there! » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 9:05 pm BJ will svck cxs in hell. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 8:27 pm I need for you to go there and spread the word. Before Friday. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 8:16 pm That all sounds so familiar. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 7:44 pm Never underestimate the ability of a mob to behave hatefully. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 8:40 pm Yes, indeed! The trolls over a t huff are trying to make hay out of the two governors races. They want me to believe that winning seats in the House is somehow bad. I don’t understand the logic of reactionaries. Never have. Apparently Lush said today that the 23rd was crucial to the Rethug cause. Heehehehehehe. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 4, 2009 @ 12:17 am Try to have something for next Monday. Research. Find an article and give us a summary, and post the link. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 11, 2009 @ 5:23 pm My wife got tickets to Area 9, which I have yet to see, for this evening, and thus I will not be able to respond as this moves forward tonight. I will let this go one more day, Mo offered some good points, as did Nellie. Feel free to continue this until Thurs evening then I will pull it down and refresh it for next Monday. Please try to have some research to share then. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 11, 2009 @ 10:40 am Mo, Thanks for this. You were slightly off topic, by five or ten degrees. Not a complaint. Seeing as you know German politics so well, perhaps you can take the next few weeks as we work thru this to educate us in depth as to how things work there? Remembering the first question: what number of parties best progresses a society? Be looking for evidence of roadblocks to progress. You illustrated in part a classic, Puritanism. An unwillingness to compromise. Like allowing an abortion rider on a national health care bill. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 11, 2009 @ 10:37 am In other words, Puritans. I just sent a bit of a snotty letter to the VP of my Dem Club (of which I am an officer) because her hair is on fire over the abortion amendment. She wants the club to send Nancy a Stern Letter! As if Nancy did not gag on that amendment. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 11, 2009 @ 10:33 am MO, What’s with the goddam emotacons? Uhg. I thought for a second that I was at the wrong site! It is trivial to establish a party. What is extraordinarily difficult is to achieve any credibility. And my knock on the Greens is that they waste effort running a presidential candidate. If they could win and hold a SINGLE House seat, they would gain vastly more credibility. If they could win a dozen, they would have actual power. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 11, 2009 @ 10:30 am No, you don’t get off that easy. Do some research and expand on the Brit model. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 10, 2009 @ 9:25 pm OK, we have scratched the surface, but now I am looking for actual analysis. Pepe wrote of the Canadian system, with four parties. Pepe, how about finding us some articles on the subject that illustrate the issues of having four parties? And I am not convinced that the structure of our Constitution prevents utterly the rise of a third party. The fact is that the two parties collude to prevent third party success. I’ll leave this thread up until Wednesday evening, then write a follow-on come next Monday. Please do a bit of research before next Monday. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 10, 2009 @ 5:45 pm I love a straight line! Welcome to the planet. Feel free to express an opinion. Expect to be contradicted. Live with it. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 10, 2009 @ 10:05 am I think you have things all wrong here. Obviously there would be coalitions in the legislature assuming three viable parties. That is the rule, not the exception, in the other democracies of the world. What concerns me is at what number of parties does deadlock develop? Clearly, here in the states, two does not get things moving very quickly. But a lot of that arises from the structure and rules of the Senate. You have a good point about the election of presidents assuming three equally viable parties, in our system of Separation of Powers. Would the center party ally itself with the party to its right or left and run a single candidate? With the assumption that the other party would get to name Sec State or some other cabinet seats? The question of public financing is a tangent. I’m looking for a discussion of what number of parties is dynamically ideal. Financing is a matter of how to get there. Worthy of a discussion on its own, but off topic here. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 10, 2009 @ 9:33 am IRV is interesting. Assume that Al Gore and George Bush were standing for the presidency, and the Greens put up an attractive candidate with a sensible platform. Good Liberals would be troubled at the choice between Gore and the Green, especially considering the prospect of electing Bush. With IRV, a voter could make the Green his first choice, and Gore his second. We assume just now that the Green would not win, but all his votes would go to Gore, that plus all the Dems and liberal independents delivers victory. The good thing there is that the Greens gain credibility. The bad thing is that the candidate who gets the secondary vote loses his mandate, assuming that he was the first choice of 40% of Americans and second of 15%. Not that Obama having won a clear mandate has slowed the party of NO. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 10, 2009 @ 9:30 am I’ve seen IRV demonstrated. It is in effect in some parts of CA. The thing I like about IRV is that it naturally disadvantages tenth tier parties. It would acomadate a third and fourth party, but the tiny parties would not gain traction, and I’m OK with that. I really have no interest in having ten parties with a real chance to sit in the House. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 10, 2009 @ 9:12 am Your wellcum! (ooops) » Posted By KevenSeven On November 3, 2009 @ 9:32 am Don’t know. Ask adlib the next time he is on the board. » Posted By KevenSeven On November 3, 2009 @ 9:31 am You could put up a picture of a monkey’s ass… » Posted By KevenSeven On November 3, 2009 @ 12:14 amComments Posted By KevenSeven
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats