how voting works in Ireland

... OK, this is an Australian cartoon, but they have the same system we do, so it still counts. Just showing ye how "first-past-the-post" isn't always a good idea... :-P

While I kinda like the model shown here, there is much more than that effecting US voting.

Course I don't like your way enough to want to adopt it. Funniest thing was thinking that the guy who won just might adopt stances from another party. That never happens. Wishful thinking is good for the soul though.

Guns for babies and incest.......yet another shot at conservatives???

It may not be, but I have seen and dealt with it too many times. Kinda how many think that we in the south are racist inbreds. Funny thing is that when you link them up to FBI stats, you see that it is liberal bastions like CA and OR that lead the nation in both hate groups and incest.

Oh well, the echo chamber will continue the echos.....gawd I love the key phrases like "echo chamber". That one phrase is used to enforce the ideas that the phrase is actually making fun of.......true irony.

Plum McFartle would be Sean Hannity
Gruntward would be Ron Paul
Wakkun would Harry Reid / Obama.
 and Beremy is most likely Rush Limbaugh.

Marconius wrote:Guns for babies and incest.......yet another shot at conservatives???

This is an Australian cartoon, not an American (it even says so in the header at the top). They have guns there, not as many as ye guys, but they have guns, and going by the jokes you hear, there are definitely parts of the country where they like to "keep it in the family" (when they're not out shagging the local livestock).

So how come everything always has to be about you guys eh, have a bit of a complex there do we? The word doesn't revolve around 'Murica you know - you really think you're the only racist inbreds on the planet? Try going to Northern Scotland, the West of Ireland, or Western Australia/the Northeren Territories some time :-P

And hell, the term "redneck" doesn't even originate with you guys anyway, the first use of the term "rednecks" was in Scotland back in the 1600s...

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:Guns for babies and incest.......yet another shot at conservatives???

This is an Australian cartoon, not an American (it even says so in the header at the top). They have guns there, not as many as ye guys, but they have guns, and going by the jokes you hear, there are definitely parts of the country where they like to "keep it in the family" (when they're not out shagging the local livestock).

So how come everything always has to be about you guys eh, have a bit of a complex there do we? The word doesn't revolve around 'Murica you know - you really think you're the only racist inbreds on the planet? Try going to Northern Scotland, the West of Ireland, or Western Australia/the Northeren Territories some time :-P

And hell, the term "redneck" doesn't even originate with you guys anyway, the first use of the term "rednecks" was in Scotland back in the 1600s...

Everything is about us because we don't know anything about other countries culture.     We cant relate.  That's why you are important to our group. 

Marconius wrote:Guns for babies and incest.......yet another shot at conservatives???

It may not be, but I have seen and dealt with it too many times. Kinda how many think that we in the south are racist inbreds. Funny thing is that when you link them up to FBI stats, you see that it is liberal bastions like CA and OR that lead the nation in both hate groups and incest.

Oh well, the echo chamber will continue the echos.....gawd I love the key phrases like "echo chamber". That one phrase is used to enforce the ideas that the phrase is actually making fun of.......true irony.

I haven't seen any stats on incest (although I was just disturbed to learn cousin marriage is legal in California), the bastion of hate groups has to be Idaho. Both WA and OR have had problems with skin heads in Idaho (see article I linked a while back about John Day, OR blocking an attempted take over by Arian Nations from Idaho).

Imo, skin heads and Aryan nation are true hate groups because they call for violent militant action against minorities as well as the violent overthrow of the US govt.  Yet their speech is protected.

Dennis324 wrote:Imo, skin heads and Aryan nation are true hate groups because they call for violent militant action against minorities as well as the violent overthrow of the US govt.  Yet their speech is protected.

When they showed up to John Day, they were promptly driven out. All real estate was pulled off the market. A protest was held to show the skin heads they weren't welcome, about 1500 of the counties 7000 residents showed up. When they arrived, the locals drove them out. If they hadn't left...lets just say almost everyone in this county has a gun.

Dennis324 wrote:

Sorry I edited what you were referring to, it didn't represent the best of me...

I've done that many times. 

Bryant wrote:
I haven't seen any stats on incest (although I was just disturbed to learn cousin marriage is legal in California), the bastion of hate groups has to be Idaho.  Both WA and OR have had problems with skin heads in Idaho (see article I linked a while back about John Day, OR blocking an attempted take over by Arian Nations from Idaho).

What about Illinois Nazis?

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:Guns for babies and incest.......yet another shot at conservatives???

This is an Australian cartoon, not an American (it even says so in the header at the top). They have guns there, not as many as ye guys, but they have guns, and going by the jokes you hear, there are definitely parts of the country where they like to "keep it in the family" (when they're not out shagging the local livestock).

So how come everything always has to be about you guys eh, have a bit of a complex there do we? The word doesn't revolve around 'Murica you know - you really think you're the only racist inbreds on the planet? Try going to Northern Scotland, the West of Ireland, or Western Australia/the Northeren Territories some time :-P

And hell, the term "redneck" doesn't even originate with you guys anyway, the first use of the term "rednecks" was in Scotland back in the 1600s...

Never said it was a shot at US conservatives there Miles. Why did you make it about us??? It seems to be an attack on Aussie conservatives. One that you just repeated the echoes to. It surprises me only because you just posted an article about why some seem to be low information. I thought you, of all people, would not make such suppositions.

Besides, tUSA has the lowest incest rates in the world so we definitely do not have a corner on the market. What incest we do see here seems to take place in places outside of "redneck central" so once again, we do not have a corner on the market. For proof, check out FBI stats on us.gov.

Ssssssshhhhhh........I think the echoes are dying.

Bryant wrote:

Marconius wrote:Guns for babies and incest.......yet another shot at conservatives???

It may not be, but I have seen and dealt with it too many times. Kinda how many think that we in the south are racist inbreds. Funny thing is that when you link them up to FBI stats, you see that it is liberal bastions like CA and OR that lead the nation in both hate groups and incest.

Oh well, the echo chamber will continue the echos.....gawd I love the key phrases like "echo chamber". That one phrase is used to enforce the ideas that the phrase is actually making fun of.......true irony.

I haven't seen any stats on incest (although I was just disturbed to learn cousin marriage is legal in California), the bastion of hate groups has to be Idaho.  Both WA and OR have had problems with skin heads in Idaho (see article I linked a while back about John Day, OR blocking an attempted take over by Arian Nations from Idaho).

Actually Bryant, most Americans who want to intermarry, go to Europe where it is still legal in almost every country. They have to keep it that way to support the royal families they are so proud of. In reality tUSA has, by far, the lowest incest rates in the world. Many seem to think that incest is only practiced by poor, uneducated individuals. Actually, the really rich and educated practice it more. Historically it has always been that way. It keeps the money and power in the same family. So if we are going to be repeating echoes, let's at least do some research on the subject we are echoing.

As of the last time I checked the stats(you can find them on the FBI's website).....last year.....Oregon did indeed lead the nation in hate groups. California did indeed lead the nation in incest.

Marconius wrote:

As of the last time I checked the stats(you can find them on the FBI's website).....last year.....Oregon did indeed lead the nation in hate groups. California did indeed lead the nation in incest.

Probably because they are so liberally-minded there.  Anything goes. 

Marconius wrote:
Never said it was a shot at US conservatives there Miles. Why did you make it about us???

Touché sir, well played.. :-P

And in my defense, denis did comment before me comparing the characters in it to hannity, limbaugh etc, so I wasn't the first :-P

Marconius wrote:

Funniest thing was thinking that the guy who won just might adopt stances from another party. That never happens. Wishful thinking is good for the soul though.

Well, while that is wishful thinking, what tends to happen is that when the big parties already know that they're not going to get their people in on the first count, they have to moderate their positions and align them a bit more with the smaller parties so that they at least don't piss off the voters that will potentially be giving them transfers (of course, what they do when they actually get into power is a totally different story altogether, but even then they have to keep at least half an eye on the next election).

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:
Never said it was a shot at US conservatives there Miles. Why did you make it about us???

Touché sir, well played.. :-P

And in my defense, denis did comment before me comparing the characters in it to hannity, limbaugh etc, so I wasn't the first :-P

I will give you that good sir

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Funniest thing was thinking that the guy who won just might adopt stances from another party. That never happens. Wishful thinking is good for the soul though.

Well, while that is wishful thinking, what tends to happen is that when the big parties already know that they're not going to get their people in on the first count, they have to moderate their positions and align them a bit more with the smaller parties so that they at least don't piss off the voters that will potentially be giving them transfers (of course, what they do when they actually get into power is a totally different story altogether, but even then they have to keep at least half an eye on the next election).

That is why I never fall for campaign promises. Way to skeptical for that. I always vote for the guy who tells me what he will let me do for myself instead of the guy who tells me what he will do for me.

I do however like your system. I would love to see more than two parties here. What we have seen with the two party system is the slow, steady joining of the parties. They will never admit to being joined at the hip, but they are. It is in their best interests to not admit that they are one and the same. Sure there are minor differences, but those differences are cosmetic only. Things like abortion, gay rights and such. These things do not even belong in the discussion on a Federal level here in tUSA. I know that idea most assuredly sounds foreign to you, but the way our country was founded is different than the way others were founded.

Bare with me on this:

If we read and study the true intent of the founders, they wanted a nation that could appeal to all. Many now-a-days say "well they only did this or that to appease this group or that group". That is exactly correct, but the idea is being looked at wrongly. Basically, each state was to be semi-sovereign and held into place by a weak Federal government for mutual protection (ie. a UNION of states). Why else did we name ourselves "United States". Also why our motto is E Pluribus Unum. We were supposed to be many little countries tied together by a common government. This idea was common and well accepted. Each citizen was free to find the "country" they most liked and live there.

In a nutshell, the Federal government had very limited powers and most powers were reserved to each individual state. The fluff that our parties argue over, like gay rights and abortion, were to be handled on the state level. These things were never meant to cause a rift in the nation like we see today, but today our parties use these differences to keep us divided and arguing so that the Federal government can easily grow in power and scope.

I could go deeper and deeper into this, but that would be a different topic altogether.

Bottom line: I like your system if only because it doesn't drive a wedge through the populace. I would love to see us adopt some of it, yet keep our "checks and balances" intact.....checks and balances.....heh, that has become a joke in and of itself(I could start here with lifetime SCOTUS and career politicians).

If we read and study the true intent of the founders, they wanted a nation that could appeal to all. Many now-a-days say "well they only did this or that to appease this group or that group". That is exactly correct, but the idea is being looked at wrongly. Basically, each state was to be semi-sovereign and held into place by a weak Federal government for mutual protection (ie. a UNION of states). Why else did we name ourselves "United States". Also why our motto is E Pluribus Unum. We were supposed to be many little countries tied together by a common government.

This was only true until March 4, 1789, when the Articles of Confederation were the act was rescinded and a considerably stronger central government was formed. Why did this happen? Because the small counties under a weak central government model enacted in 1781 had proved to be an abysmal failure. The Constitution wasn't meant to create a small, subordinate Federal government, it was designed to erect a strong (albeit limited) central authority capable of handling national issues.

Bryant wrote:

If we read and study the true intent of the founders, they wanted a nation that could appeal to all. Many now-a-days say "well they only did this or that to appease this group or that group". That is exactly correct, but the idea is being looked at wrongly. Basically, each state was to be semi-sovereign and held into place by a weak Federal government for mutual protection (ie. a UNION of states). Why else did we name ourselves "United States". Also why our motto is E Pluribus Unum. We were supposed to be many little countries tied together by a common government.

This was only true until March 4, 1789, when the Articles of Confederation were the act was rescinded and a considerably stronger central government was formed.  Why did this happen?  Because the small counties under a weak central government model enacted in 1781 had proved to be an abysmal failure.  The Constitution wasn't meant to create a small, subordinate Federal government, it was designed to erect a strong (albeit limited) central authority capable of handling national issues.

Not talking about anything but the Constitution. You are taking me too literally. Until the Constitution was written, there was no USA. Feds were to provide common defense, take care of trade, build infrastructure, and levy small, reasonable taxes(all were excise taxes). Not much more. Other than that, nothing else was considered national issues. Well, there were disputes between the states....even up until the late 1860's there were times where states actually almost went to war with one another. So I guess you could say moderator was its job as well. Strong wasn't really the word the framers used when describing the power of Federal government. In fact "strong" isn't even close. States still had final rule over laws within their borders. Hell, states do indeed have the power to deem laws unconstitutional without even going to the federal level.....'course we don't ever see it used.

As I said, we could make a new topic for this. To continue here would be unfair to Miles. This is his international playground.