Barbarians are at the U.S. gates

Toronto Sun ^ | October 4, 2004 | Salim Mansur

[late bloomer]

In the Foxes Den..

cheny
rumsfeld
wolfowitz, et al, and a damm good thing too

[TexasCowboy]

Don't feel bad.

Ignorance is involuntary and correctible.
Stupidity is voluntary and permanent.

There are some of the best minds in America on this forum covering every subject known to man.
If you want an education, stick around.

Welcome to FR!

[T'wit]

Remove the stolen Democrat votes and I daresay President Bush won election by a substantial margin.

[OldFriend]

Dare I ask just what college you attended.

Is it possible you never did a bit of research, just took every word uttered in class as truth.

Were there no textbooks?

Hilary, is that you???

[Clive]

"They've been INSIDE for quite a while now!"

Agreed. They are indeed inside

Just as they had long since infiltrated the Roman empire long before Alaric sacked the city of Rome.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[texgal]

We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. Mob Rule is no way to run a government, especially when they are fed propaganda and lies.

So true. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC at that. Something the barbarians who've already made through the gates are trying to undermine.

[theFIRMbss]

>Unfortunately, if the author of the article is right, neither of the candidates is good enough - the good leader has to be able to act BOTH as a fox and as a lion

	Yes, but we can't vote for Martha, because she'll be "away" for a while . . .

[texgal]

Spoken like a true socialist. Don't know where you went to college, but the electoral college was instituted by our founding fathers. It is, as it was said in the article, to prevent mob rule.

We are NOT a democracy - we are a Constitutional Republic - and as such, unique among all other nations.

What you preport to do is to reduce us to rule of the mob something that the barbarians who have already made it into the gates want to do.

[dirtboy]

As I was taught in college, the electoral college was a product of the post-reconstruction era. It was made in an attempt to circumvent the new black vote. It didn't matter then who got the majority of the votes, it was whoever was in charge of the electoral college of that state to distribute the vote, and guess who that was ;)

That's a staggering display of historical ignorance. First of all, the Electoral college was created in the Constitution itself, not by amendment - so it was in place well before the Civil War. And second, the Radical Republicans were in charge of the House and Senate after the Civil War - and they would have wanted the black vote to count.

Your parents should ask for their tuition money back...

[Inwoodian]

One might also be reminded of America's own past military heroes. In the Revolutionary War there was a particular general who was among the top two or three heroes of this conflict until he turned on his fledgling countrymen. His name was Benedict Arnold.

[texasbluebell]

This type of post is going to be seen more and more, as the leftists go after the Electoral College.

Hillary herself attacked it a while ago, saying what Emmy says here.

"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:tWsY4nG5tgQJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml+hillary+clinton+electoral+college&hl=en

The leftists want the popular vote to be the determining factor, not that silly old Electoral College, which is all that prevents even more dissension.

Emmy, you were ill-served by your professors who taught you that. You have to re-educate yourself.

The STATES, not the PEOPLE, elect the President.

[texasbluebell]

The STATES, not the PEOPLE, elect the President.

And I should have added, that was decided long before the Civil War era.

[Bogolyubski]

Proof that there are some assertions so stupid that only a college-education would allow one to believe them.

The elctoral college was there from day one. Senators were elected that way originally as well until it was changed to popular vote in post-reconstruction era. (17th Amendment, ratified in 1913.)

[viaveritasvita]

Let your real education begin, kiddo! Your post is a stunning example of why so many Americans are disgusted with what we might call the "leftie indoctrination of our children." Many of my friends (and you'll find plenty on FR, too) have opted for home schooling rather than send their children to be brainwashed by the left. It's sad that you have been so deceived, but there's always hope!

If you are really seeking truth, you'll find much to consider and research for yourself here on Free Republic. Your first assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to research several sources for the origins of electoral college. You might private post to some of the people here who've responded to you and ask them for some links or information to get your started.

I hope you have thick skin and can concede defeat gracefully!

Welcome to Free Republic and may God richly bless you with discernment and guidance.

<><

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[El Gato]

As I was taught in college, the electoral college was a product of the post-reconstruction era. It was made in an attempt to circumvent the new black vote. It didn't matter then who got the majority of the votes, it was whoever was in charge of the electoral college of that state to distribute the vote, and guess who that was ;)

How did they explain that the "product of the post-reconstruction era" was put in place with the Constitution itself, ratified in June 1788, whereas reconstruction didn't even start until 1865? The Constitution gives to the State Legislatures the power to determine how the electors are chosen. Mostly that's been by election by the people at large, although it has at some times been directly by the legislature, especially in the early days of the Republic.

Now, it may have been that in post reconstruction South the black vote didn't count for much in selecting the electors, but that would be true of any minority group without substantial support among the majority population, whether that group was defined by race, or by political position.

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

Yet another reason to fight vigorously to maintain the White House.

[El Gato]

If you go with a pure democracy, then you could see massive vote fraud, especially in Democrat dominated areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Boston.

Of course vote fraud can still swing close elections in states that are not completely dominated by one side or another. Chicago would be an example, as would Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and now several cities in Ohio. Significant parts of the states containing those cities are "red country" while the cities are "blue". If there is massive vote fraud in those cities, it can turn the election of the electors in those states. Some of the effect could be mitigated if all states moved from "winner take all" to "by Congressional District" (plus two winner take all for the two votes that each states gets regardless of the number of Congressional districts) Thus Chicago's Democrat machine could stuff the boxes to their hearts content, but the Republicans still could win in the electoral votes of the southern part of the state. Only a couple of states currently use that sort of system. Another proposal is "proportional selection", but that lends itself to the same sort of "ballot box stuffing" problems that direct election of the President would have

[Vineyard]

If someone gave you a "penny for your thoughts" - you owe them change!!

As noted elsewhere, our Constitution created the Electoral College - in 1787 - not after the Civil War.

Our Constitution did not create a Democracy - but a Republic.

A republic, with LIMITED GOVERNMENT is not a Democracy. Democracy quickly becomes MOB RULE. Would you like to be in a room with 9 men, and the 10 of you vote on legalizing RAPE?

When too much democracy seeps into the government, you can count on the votes of the 51% of the people at the bottom to TAX (or Steal) the earnings of the top 1%, then the top 10% , then the top 20% ... until the incentive to work hard dries up and the economy and work ethic resembles what is seen in Western Europe (France, Germany, Sweden, etc.) ... and there is little job growth, lots of unemployment, AND LOTS OF DEPENDENCY!!

A pundit - H. L. Mencken said, every election is an advance auction on stolen property ... and in a true democracy, there exists no protection for the person whose property can be stolen!!

Would you prefer a true democracy - with no protections? If some protections - who decides? Do we establish basic principles (like our founding father did) ... or do we have the principles placed on sand and subject to re-interpretion over time, until they are meaningless?

Sorry ... but our Electoral College should be retained. If we get rid of it ... why not get rid of the Senate? Why should California have 2 Senators, and Delaware, with a small fraction of the population also get 2 Senators? We might as well through the Constitution away and start over with something else (and the Democrats would start with something written by Marx .... Karl Marx - not Groucho Marx - as a basis for the type of government that they would want to see brought into being!!)

Mike