Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NEWS FLASH:The 16 Year Plan.
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 16 of 24 (448540)
01-13-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
01-13-2008 10:18 PM


Re: This side of the pond
yes, but VICE PRESIDENTS DON'T RECEIVE A NOMINATION. no woman has ever been nominated to be the presidential candidate for the president. it's not my fault the source ALSO discusses vice presidents. your failure to think on-topic is not my fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 10:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 10:51 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 24 (448545)
01-13-2008 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by macaroniandcheese
01-13-2008 10:33 PM


Re: This side of the pond
I repeat you said "nominated by a party"
Vice President of the United States - Wikipedia
quote:
Nominating process
The vice presidential candidates of the major national political parties are formally selected by each party's quadrennial nominating convention, following the selection of their presidential candidates. The official process is identical to the one by which the presidential candidates are chosen, with delegates placing the names of candidates into nomination, followed by a ballot in which candidates must receive a majority to secure the party's nomination. In practice, the presidential nominee has considerable influence on the decision, and in 20th century it became customary for that person to select a preferred running mate, who is then nominated and accepted by the convention.
A big deal was made of it back then, and this nomination was very important to women's rights at the time.
Care to back off the acidic comments and get off the fire ant nest?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-13-2008 10:33 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-13-2008 10:54 PM RAZD has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 18 of 24 (448547)
01-13-2008 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
01-13-2008 10:51 PM


Re: This side of the pond
no. vice presidents are not nominated. at all. i don't know where that wiki article got it's information.
but i was talking about THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, so stay on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 10:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 11:12 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 24 (448552)
01-13-2008 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by macaroniandcheese
01-13-2008 10:54 PM


Nominated is still nominated.
Sorry, you are still wrong. Even though there is in practice one nomination these days so that it is a forgone conclusion, the party still has to make the nomination and vote on it. The wiki article likely got it straight from the parties in question.
The bylaws for the Democratic convention state:
http://www.demconvention.com/a/2007/03/call_for_the_20.html
quote:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
By authority of the Democratic National Committee, the National Convention of the Democratic Party is hereby scheduled to convene on August 25, 2008, in Denver, Colorado, at an hour to be announced, to select nominees for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States of America, to adopt and promulgate a platform and to take such other actions with respect to such other matters as the Convention may deem advisable.
The parties do not select just the presidential nominee. You should watch a convention sometime.
but i was talking about THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, so stay on topic.
Which one?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-13-2008 10:54 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 24 (448563)
01-14-2008 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-13-2008 10:56 AM


What?
Senator Clinton will serve the first term as President and has agreed to stand as Vice-President during the 2012 election, Clinton to stand as President in the 2016 election and Obama to stand for President during the final Quadrannual election.
Do you have a link? This sounds like a joke.

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-13-2008 10:56 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 12:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 21 of 24 (448566)
01-14-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
01-14-2008 12:09 AM


Re: What?
You don't bother reading threads, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-14-2008 12:09 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2008 1:08 AM molbiogirl has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 24 (448571)
01-14-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Straggler
01-13-2008 11:03 AM


Re: This side of the pond
Hi Straggler,
the first female and the first black.
Sorry they are not the first for either.
First woman: 1872 and 1892 Victoria Chaflin Woodhull, United States of America
First black: 1972 Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm, United States of America
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Candidates1870.htm

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2008 11:03 AM Straggler has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 24 (448572)
01-14-2008 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by molbiogirl
01-14-2008 12:14 AM


Re: What?
molbiogirl writes:
quote:
You don't bother reading threads, do you?
Even if he did, it wouldn't help. He responded to a direct question with a cryptic utterance.
Yes, it's a joke. There is a "World Net Daily" but not a "World Daily Net."
It would help if jar were to simply come out and say directly, "This was a joke."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 12:14 AM molbiogirl has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 24 of 24 (448573)
01-14-2008 1:13 AM


Adminnemooseus impression - This is a mighty dubious topic
Going to close it down.
I also suggest that Jar, in general, be much more selective in his starting of new topics. I've had thoughts that his new topics permissions should be suspended.
If anyone wished to present a case why it should be reopened, to to the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below.
Other discussion - Go to the "General discussion..." topic, link also below.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024