Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando

Danzig

Well-Known Member
2 People Receive Minor Injuries During Protest

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday.

WKMG-TV reported that several people from the group of 100 Orlando protestors face possible assault charges after the group forced their way inside the Republican headquarters office.


While in the building, some of the protestors drew horns and a mustache on a poster of President George W. Bush and poured piles of letters in the office, according to the report. <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


"We told them to leave, they broke the law," Republican headquarters volunteer Mike Broom said.

http://www.news4jax.com/politics/3787122/detail.html
 
K

Kain99

Guest
They must have been pretty upset about Cheney's showing last night! :killingme
 

Toxick

Splat
Danzig said:
2 People Receive Minor Injuries During Protest




Doesn't this just scream tolerance and nothing but love for free speech?

SCREAMS Tolerance.




Screams and beats you over the head with it.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
But they are LIBERALS. Don't they believe in free speech and the election process? I know that Democrats don't like the Electoral College when it works against them, but don't Democrats number Thomas Jefferson among the Democratic party ancestors? Seems he was one of those that instituted the Electoral College. The Democrat (not democratic) way, if it goes for them - for it; against - do away with it. To heck with the Constitution; we don't need no stinkin' Constitution!
 

Spoiled

Active Member
2ndAmendment said:
But they are LIBERALS. Don't they believe in free speech and the election process? I know that Democrats don't like the Electoral College when it works against them, but don't Democrats number Thomas Jefferson among the Democratic party ancestors? Seems he was one of those that instituted the Electoral College. The Democrat (not democratic) way, if it goes for them - for it; against - do away with it. To heck with the Constitution; we don't need no stinkin' Constitution!


times and things change, hence the reason there are 27 amendments to the constitution, our constitution has outlasted any other constitution because of its ability to change with time...

the electoral college is out-dated... The reason for its existing is because the average individual wasnt informed of what was going on, much less who was even running for office, so they elected prominent members of their society to find out and cast their vote for them. If i recall in order to be elected someone must get the majority of the votes, if that doesnt happen then it goes to the house, where they vote on president... The electoral college pre-dated our 2 party system so getting the majority of the votes was suposed to be difficult, in other words the legislative branch would be doing most of the appointing when it came to president...
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Spoiled said:
the electoral college is out-dated... The reason for its existing is because the average individual wasnt informed of what was going on, much less who was even running for office, so they elected prominent members of their society to find out and cast their vote for them....

Do you just make this stuff up? Read the Federalist Papers. The most important reason is that a candidate have across the board support, and not just heavy regional support - if not for the electoral college, all of our Presidents would be voted in simply by major population centers.

Secondly, representative government IS what we have - we elect people to speak on our behalf. And until the 20th century, *senators* were not even elected - they were appointed.

Thirdly - you're right that it predates the party system - but it serves VERY well when there is more than two strong parties. Consider the recent election of '92, where we DID have a strong third party in Ross Perot - he made a strong showing, but didn't place higher than third anywhere - but it's conceivable he could have received the largest number of votes without placing first *anywhere*. THAT is why the electoral college works.

As close as 2000 was - it *should* have been a slam dunk for a sitting VP of one of the most popular presidents in recent history. As it was, the guy didn't even carry his OWN state.

Lastly - the average individual *STILL* doesn't know what is going on - an astonishing number of people still couldn't tell you who our vice-President is, or who Kerry is running with, or what state he is from. Things haven't changed a lot.
 

SmallTown

Football season!
It was just reported on foxnews that a group of the protestors were on interstate 4 and were trying to merge in traffic. A limo carrying VP cheney refused to let them over and finally Cheney stuck his head out of the window and told the guys to go #### themselves.
 

tlatchaw

Not dead yet.
SmallTown said:
It was just reported on foxnews that a group of the protestors were on interstate 4 and were trying to merge in traffic. A limo carrying VP cheney refused to let them over and finally Cheney stuck his head out of the window and told the guys to go #### themselves.

:killingme :killingme :killingme If only it were true. Oh wait, that doesn't matter if you're bashing Bush/Cheney, does it?
 

Spoiled

Active Member
SamSpade said:
Do you just make this stuff up? Read the Federalist Papers. The most important reason is that a candidate have across the board support, and not just heavy regional support - if not for the electoral college, all of our Presidents would be voted in simply by major population centers.

Secondly, representative government IS what we have - we elect people to speak on our behalf. And until the 20th century, *senators* were not even elected - they were appointed.

Thirdly - you're right that it predates the party system - but it serves VERY well when there is more than two strong parties. Consider the recent election of '92, where we DID have a strong third party in Ross Perot - he made a strong showing, but didn't place higher than third anywhere - but it's conceivable he could have received the largest number of votes without placing first *anywhere*. THAT is why the electoral college works.

As close as 2000 was - it *should* have been a slam dunk for a sitting VP of one of the most popular presidents in recent history. As it was, the guy didn't even carry his OWN state.

Lastly - the average individual *STILL* doesn't know what is going on - an astonishing number of people still couldn't tell you who our vice-President is, or who Kerry is running with, or what state he is from. Things haven't changed a lot.
By majority of votes i meant the majority of the electoral college votes, and now the electoral college doesnt change their votes, they do vote for who ever the people wanted him/her to vote for...

and no im not making this stuff up, im in a class that is all about the constitution
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
The protesters weren't Kerry backers or Nader backers. That's just what Mickey Mouse wants us to think. It's all part of Mickey's plan for world domination. Soon, all of us will be under the iron fist of the mouse, like a Disneyfied version of Orwell's "1984." Mickey's smiling face will stare at us from Big Brother telescreens, which will play "It's a Small World" over and over, forever.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Tonio said:
Soon, all of us will be under the iron fist of the mouse, like a Disneyfied version of Orwell's "1984."
Count me in! We dropped a fortune at Disney last year - would be nice to get it for free.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Spoiled said:
By majority of votes i meant the majority of the electoral college votes, and now the electoral college doesnt change their votes, they do vote for who ever the people wanted him/her to vote for...

and no im not making this stuff up, im in a class that is all about the constitution
Are you actually reading the Constitution and the historical documents leading to the Constitution or did you buy the Cliffs Notes? Are you reading a book about the Constitution or are you reading the Constitution and the historical documents leading to the Constitution? Are you accepting the word of an instructor, liberal (most are) or conservative, that puts their spin on the Constitution or are you reading the Constitution and the historical documents leading to the Constitution?

If the answer to any of the above questions is not reading the Constitution and the historical documents leading to the Constitution, then you are not studying the Constitution.

The Electoral College was created so that the large population areas would not dominate the small ones. Where do you live, Maryland, Delaware, Arizona? Without the Electoral College, you might as well not vote. At the time of the writing, without the Electoral College, Pennsylvania and New York could have dominated the elections over the other 11 states. Now, without the Electoral College, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and Florida could dominate the elections. The Electoral College protects the votes of the citizens from the less populous states. If your instructor has not taught you that, be very suspect of anything your instructor teaches you.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Spoiled said:
By majority of votes i meant the majority of the electoral college votes, and now the electoral college doesnt change their votes, they do vote for who ever the people wanted him/her to vote for...

and no im not making this stuff up, im in a class that is all about the constitution

Yes, I know. Actually, it's only gone to the House once, and not surprisingly, it was the first time there was a 'popular' vote. And just as in 2000, the guy who got the most votes - Jackson - did NOT get elected, and he fussed about "the will of the people being thwarted". Some things don't change. Lesson that SHOULD have been learned : Don't like it? Change the law, not the election process. You don't change the rules after the game is over.

As many on here can well attest, I've always been a big fan of the Federalist Papers, and I've referenced them on this forum and its predecessors for many years. They provide detailed explanations for the reasoning behind the decision set forth in the Constitution, and on more than one occasion I've been dumbfounded at their sheer brilliance.
 

SmallTown

Football season!
2ndAmendment said:
Are you accepting the word of an instructor, liberal (most are) or conservative...
:offtopic:
Why are most instructors liberals? Not disputing the idea, just wondering why it is the case?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
2ndAmendment said:
Without the Electoral College, you might as well not vote. At the time of the writing, without the Electoral College, Pennsylvania and New York could have dominated the elections over the other 11 states.

Actually, it would have been Virginia at that time.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
SmallTown said:
:offtopic:
Why are most instructors liberals? Not disputing the idea, just wondering why it is the case?
I think it might be that when I was in college, the Student Democratic Unoin (I think that was the name) proposed that college students that were against the Vietnam police action become teachers, film makers and actors, reporters, and the like in order to control the political discourse in the United States in the future.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
Actually, it would have been Virginia at that time.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I would have to research the major population centers at the time. I think New York City and Philadelphia were the two major population centers.

Also, we did have two predominate political partys at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Whigs and the Torys, so the time of the Revolution was not without political partys. There were the Federalists and the anti-federalists as well, but I don't think they were actual partys.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
2ndAmendment said:
Maybe, but I don't think so. I would have to research the major population centers at the time. I think New York City and Philadelphia were the two major population centers.

Hate to remind you, but I do work at the Census. Somehow I had a feeling you would challenge it.

1790 Census:

Virginia 691,737
Pennsylvania 434,373
North Carolina 393,751
Massachusetts 378,787
New York 340,120
Maryland 319,728
South Carolina 249,073
Connecticut 237,946
New Jersey 184,139
New Hamshire 141,885
Maine 96,540
Vermont 85,425
Georgia 82,548
Rhode Island 68,875
Delaware 59,096
(West Virginia 55,873)* wasn't a state yet.

You are right about the population centers, but we were fairly agrarian back then.
 
Top