snafu

I think that's how they got Easily, right? Or was it the year after because he was injured and they were thin at WR?

Congrats!!

Oy frikkin Vey! Can we just be done with this already. Vote. I don't care who wins, give it to Nanker -- just vote and relegate this thread to the ashbin. Its like herding cats.

If they'd only work on The third part of that jackass Ryan plan first -- like Obama should have done 7 years ago. That would be a good start.

And your guys can't beat my guys.

It may not be the best timing in the world to play "gotcha" with SCOTUS nominations.

Hey dude, I missed the game tonight. Did anything good happen?

20% of the GOP < 10% of the country's interest. Last I checked, democracy was a majority/minority thing when it comes to interests and votes. The "sheer stupidity" is trying to cater to everyone on both sides. That's why you get this clown show. Lack of leadership is the root of the problem. That and lack of patience to craft something right before shoving it under everyone's nose.

Q3 rebuttal (I reserve my right to post a follow-up Q4): Nanker's Q3 argument shoots his case in the foot. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The 12th Amendment was Ratified in 1804. In 1824, as Nanker points out, the 12th Amendment was altered without any further due process. Things change. The way that the EC tallied and reported votes for the President changed because it was obsolete at that time. Since 1824, human progress has changed the circumstances again. Better education, more voters (women, former slaves, etc), better methods of transportation, etc. It's so obvious, there's no need to belabor it. The point is, the Electoral College hasn't kept up with the times. That makes it obsolete. I never did and I never would propose for one person, one vote for president. However, the way that the EC has been run since 1824 is absolutely wrong in light of the makeup of our nation. There is a better way, it retains a representative democratic method, and doesn't call for a direct democracy. According to my way, there a an still be one candidate who gains the national popular vote, but loses the electoral vote. According to my way, the deplorables still have a voice, as much as the blue elites. Here is what I propose -- based on the provisions of the Constitution: Constitution, Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. 12th Amendment, first Paragraph: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate Look at NYS as my example. When I went to the polls on Election Day, I know that my vote didn't matter at all. I knew that HRC was taking all of the electoral votes of my state. That's the method of today that Nanker has chosen to defend. If each elector, on the other hand, tallied the popular vote of each of the State's Congressional District and pledged its EC voice to the winner of the popular vote in that CD, then the representation gets down to the people and give the Catskills and Adirondacks and the souther tier of WNY the same voice as Kings County and the Bronx, etc. Nobody reports the Presidential Votes cast per CD (unfortunately), but if you look at NYS during the 2016 general election, you get a sense that the state would absolutely be in play between both major party candidates. Instead of 29 votes to HRC, she might likely have gotten 20 to DJT's 9. If you say that the president would then be likely to have a House Majority, then I think you'd be wrong. People don't always vote the same for president as they do for their congressperson. My way actually adheres to the spirit of the Constitution and prevents candidates from ignoring ANY part of the country. [...takes bow, steps off the dais] Q4: All I can say is that I didn't realize you were into furry porn. Gutterminded loon.

Tricky sonofabitch.

Welcome back! I'm going to need a little time for my Q3. I've got some things to attend to. Won't be long. What's the score anyhow? If it's tied, want to make it a 3Q match?

The heck with all that tell them what they want to hear: that you're developing a nerve gas that only works on non-progressives.

Pardon me while I go vomit.

I understand why this team does it, and lord knows their power play has been tops in the league this season, but I hate when forwards play the point on the power play.

No no. First there was the strict adherence to the word "wiretap". Then there was the Trump vs. Administration parsing. Then it was "well, there wasn't any surveillance of US citizens, so it's okay". Then it turned into "nothing to see here".

Finally looked at the hit. That was nasty. I'd call it borderline, and I like the way Risto has been developing a bit if a mean streak this season. If he's got to sit a few late-season games when the team isn't fighting for anything, then so be it. Wingers coming out of their zone will take notice.

Well at least he could use the rest with all the minutes he's played this year.

The GOP isn't smart. That's the problem. They're morons who can't get their *#%$ together and it keeps the dumber, but more partisan and cohesive Dems in the game. Embarrassing.

Wut? Where? Huh?

They could use the David Crosby method.

Disappointed is right, mild even. Nobody on either side of the aisle votes for this juvenile partisan bull****. And as for Gorsuch that's a tough call to make. I would think about it but wouldn't do it -- though he's already got his job for life. That would be interesting, because Trump would go more conservative with his next nomination as a response to this nonsense.

I thought she was Markie Post's kid, not Slick's.

Not really looking down the road, are they? Are they banking on having no other vacancies come up for three more years?

Bro, as long as someone else is the hive.