Best Korea fires mortars at Worst Korea - Developing Story - Polidicks

[QUOTE=R3mix;26273830]Alright, sticking with modern times 1900's-Today (Votes were done differently before 1900s, plus society was different) it has only happened once or twice determined by the almighty "wikipedia." Anywho, the popular vote was extremely close, and the question I propose to you is, the people in the electoral college who voted for the president who won and didnt follow popular vote, did they end up achieving re-election? My thoughts: Probably not.[/QUOTE] What? Votes weren't different before the 1900s and what does society have to do with the electoral system? The electoral college is just for procedure nowadays. It's not possible for them to go against their popular vote. What are you smoking? It's not like a group of people named the "electoral college" meet after the elections and cast secret ballots any more.

[QUOTE=huntskikbut;26274194]What? Votes weren't different before the 1900s and what does society have to do with the electoral system? The electoral college is just for procedure nowadays. It's not possible for them to go against their popular vote. What are you smoking? It's not like a group of people named the "electoral college" meet after the elections and cast secret ballots any more.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29[/url] Have fun reading.

"Best Korea fires mortars at Worst Korea" Seriously? How is the North even remotely good or best?

[QUOTE=TheLittleBus;26274156]What.[/QUOTE] By that I mean that I have seen that porn.

[QUOTE=Terragen;26274224]"Best Korea fires mortars at Worst Korea" Seriously? How is the North even remotely good or best?[/QUOTE] You dare question Best Korea's quality? Glorious leader will not be pleased.

Hey can we get back on topic? :ohdear:

[QUOTE=R3mix;26274207][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29[/url] Have fun reading.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot and severely missed the point of my post.

[QUOTE=huntskikbut;26274247]You're an idiot and severely missed the point of my post.[/QUOTE] he's not going to give up he'd tell you the moon isn't real and never ever budge from that statement

[QUOTE=huntskikbut;26274247]You're an idiot and severely missed the point of my post.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot for not reading. [quote]Faithless electors Main article: Faithless elector A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged, including one who refuses to vote for any candidate. There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan specify that his or her vote shall be canceled.[41] As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges. Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[42] That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.[/quote] Now, back ontopic.

[QUOTE=cccritical;26274288]he's not going to give up he'd tell you the moon isn't real and never ever budge from that statement[/QUOTE] "If a disease comes knocking at your door, give it a coin and tell it to away." --Proverb. We should all pitch in and him our pocket change.

[QUOTE=R3mix;26274306]You're an idiot for not reading. Now, back ontopic.[/QUOTE] [quote]As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges. Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[42] That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.[/quote]

[quote]There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date.[/quote] Don't skim, read the entire thing.

Do we have an excuse to kick that little bastard off his throne yet?

[QUOTE=R3mix;26274306] Now, back ontopic.[/QUOTE] You are making it worse. Just stop. Please.

At least Kim has Sarah Palins support.

[QUOTE=No_0ne;26274503]Do we have an excuse to kick that little bastard off his throne yet?[/QUOTE] It wouldn't do shit. He's got his son. (That is who's got me worried.)

[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;26274924](That's is who's got me worried.)[/QUOTE] That is is who is got me worried? What the fuck man

[QUOTE=Melnek;26274983]That is is who is got me worried? What the fuck man[/QUOTE] The 's in who's stands for "has", not "is" in this case.

Let's go back to discussing Best Korea and effective damage-radius of modern ICBM's. Everyone loves to read/listen people list the statistics of what happens when that RT-2UTTH Topol-M and it's 550 Kiloton warhead detonates over 400 meters above your head.

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;26275151]Let's go back to discussing Best Korea and effective damage-radius of modern ICBM's. Everyone loves to read/listen people list the statistics of what happens when that RT-2UTTH Topol-M and it's 550 Kiloton warhead detonates over 400 meters above your head.[/QUOTE] i actually just finished a discussion over this very topic with my cat [img]http://gyazo.com/5a49310f4011247e43cae1d608fcedce.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Melnek;26274983]That is is who is got me worried? What the fuck man[/QUOTE] Calm down man. Spelling mistake.

[QUOTE=cccritical;26275250]i actually just finished a discussion over this very topic with my cat [img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/5a49310f4011247e43cae1d608fcedce.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] cool, what did your cat say? [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] oh, inb4 "meow meow purrrrr" I mean, what was his/her opinion?

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;26275382]cool, what did your cat say? [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] oh, inb4 "meow meow purrrrr" I mean, what was his/her opinion?[/QUOTE] nothing you dumb shit he's a cat

[QUOTE=cccritical;26275457]nothing you dumb shit he's a cat[/QUOTE] you just said that you had an conversation with it you fucking nutjob

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;26275487]you just said that you had an conversation with it you fucking nutjob[/QUOTE] :havlat:

Your cat has a rape face it wants to fuck [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] look it's already staring at your penis, do what you gotta do

Has Best Korea been steamroll'd by the UN yet?

loooooool

[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;26275608]Your cat has a rape face it wants to fuck [editline]24th November 2010[/editline] look it's already staring at your penis, do what you gotta do[/QUOTE] have ur balls dropped yet

SK: NK, YOU BETTER NOT DO THAT AGAIN OR WE'LL BEAT YOU UP NK: w/e And that's it nothing happens for another 5 months and then NK fucks with SK again and the situation repeats itself. SK Are massive flapping wet vags, but they're somewhat justified. NK is ready for war joe (how we gonna blow they spot), whereas SK really isn't, and their capital city is just close enough to NK for their shit to get fucked up. Were war to break out there is no doubt NK would lose, but SK would suffer heavy casualties, as well as damn near economic collapse. It's not worth the risk to SK to start problems, especially not right now. But who's fucking brilliant idea was it to make the capital city just 200km from the violent erratic crazy neighbors. literally