asked her husband.
"No," said her husband.
She gave him a sexy little smile, unbuttoned the top 3 or 4 buttons of
her blouse and slowly reached down into the cleavage created by a soft,
silky push-up bra and pulled out a crumpled twenty dollar note.
He took the crumpled twenty dollar note from her, and smiled approvingly.
"Have you ever seen fifty dollars all crumpled up?" . . . she then asked
"Uh . . . no, I haven't," he said (with an anxious tone in his voice).
She gave him another sexy little smile, pulled up her skirt, and
seductively reached into her tight, sheer panties and pulled out a
crumpled fifty dollar note.
He took the crumpled fifty dollar note and started breathing a little
quicker with anticipation.
"Now," she said, "have you ever seen fifty thousand dollars all crumpled
"No way, " he said (while obviously becoming even more aroused . . . and
"Well go and look in the garage," she said.
Caitlyn Jenner came out today and said she was groped by Bruce Jenner over a several year period.
Thankfully there is no photo evidence
Doctor: "I see you're over a month late for your appointment. Don't you know that nervous disorders require prompt and regular attention? What's your excuse?"
Patient: "I was just following your orders, Doc."
Doctor: "Following my orders? What are you talking about? I gave you no such order."
Patient: "You told me to avoid people who irritate me."
When you light up an ant with a magnifying
glass it may seem deliberate, but in the ant
world, it's known as "spontaneous combustion.
A clearly inebriated woman, stark naked, jumped into a taxi in New York
City and laid down on the back seat.
The cab driver, an old Jewish gentleman, opened his eyes wide and stared
at the woman. He made no attempt to start the cab. The woman glared back
at him and said, "What's wrong with you, honey? - Haven't you ever seen
a naked woman before?"
The old Jewish driver answered, "Let me tell you sumsing, lady. I
vasn't staring at you like you tink; det vould not be proper vair I come
The drunk woman giggled and responded, "Well, if you're not staring at
my boobs or ass, sweetie, what are you doing then?"
He paused a moment, then told her..."Vell, M'am, I am looking and I am
looking, and I am tinking to myself,'Vair in da hell is dis lady keeping
de money to pay for dis ride?
Issue of the Times;
The Electoral College Works, Leave It Alone by Joe Bob Briggs
NEW YORK—Let’s all dogpile on the Electoral College.
It’s undemocratic, it’s outdated, it’s un-American. The New York Times (surprise, surprise) believes it should be abolished and we should go to a straight-up popular vote.
Because (this is the part they don’t tell you when they make this argument)...
Screw Rhode Island.
How could the concerns of those little pipsqueak states matter when the massive voting blocs of the Upper West Side and West Hollywood and Nob Hill and the South Side of Chicago are saying, “You people go back to your bass boats and your cattle ranches and your plaid work shirts and let us run the country as we see fit.”
The founders never intended 100 percent popular voting except at the lowest levels of government, town halls and city councils, where everyone knows one another. Anything beyond that, they wanted some kind of check on the passions of the mob, so that nobody got railroaded just because they were too small to defend themselves.
“So 7 percent of the time, the small states get pissed off and defeat the big ones. This is exactly what the founders envisioned.”
In other words, the Electoral College is set up to defend minorities.
That’s why Wyoming gets three votes out of 538. This one half of one percent apparently outrages the East Coast Brahmans who would prefer to ignore the small-government radicals from Laramie and Casper who keep rabble-rousing for causes like better management of the wolf population and more equitable policies for grazing livestock on federal land. Who cares about crap like that? They should have exactly what their population entitles them to--
.018 percent of the vote.
They can use the incredible clout of that .018 percent to get whatever they need and then go back to roping their goats or whatever they do.
The same goes for the syrup farmers in Vermont and the Walmart moguls in Arkansas. Twenty-five of the fifty states have seven electoral votes or fewer, so all those people who choose to live away from the crowded urban areas can basically just go artificially inseminate themselves. The most underrepresented people in America—citizens of the District of Columbia—should have those three votes taken away so we don’t have to listen to their constant bitching about, you know, how they’re not represented in Congress at all.
So we’ve had 56 presidential elections, and in four of them the Electoral College has differed from the popular vote. In 1876 it was because the North and Far West went for Hayes over Tilden even though the Democrats in the South came out in far greater numbers in an effort to get rid of Reconstruction. In 1888 it was Benjamin Harrison outcampaigning the solid Democratic South that wanted to keep Grover Cleveland. In 2000 it was the South and the Midwest defeating the big voter turnout on both coasts and the Rust Belt. And in 2016 it was, of course, the South, the Midwest, and the Rust Belt defeating the heavily populated coasts.
So 7 percent of the time, the small states get pissed off and defeat the big ones. This is exactly what the founders envisioned. They didn’t want the planter class of Virginia or the mercantile millionaires of Boston and Philadelphia running roughshod over Delaware, Rhode Island, and Georgia. In fact, the small states feared the big states so much that, without that provision, the Constitution never would have been approved.
But there’s another reason why the popular-vote argument doesn’t hold water. If the most recent presidential election had been decided by popular vote, that doesn’t mean Hillary would have won, because the patterns of campaigning and spending would have been completely different. Clinton didn’t campaign in Texas. Trump didn’t campaign in Illinois. Cities like Houston and Denver and San Diego would be in play if they weren’t written off in advance. To say “Trump would have lost if we had a popular-vote system” is to create some alternative universe in which the rules are all changed but the behavior of the candidates remains the same.
The Electoral College was set up to prevent injustice. Majority rule only works when everyone agrees on the basics. And one of those basics that no one agrees on is the role of states in our federal system. If you follow the New York Times argument to its logical conclusion, we shouldn’t have states at all. We should be more like Germany. Or Russia. Or Starbucks.
Does anyone wanna risk a straight-up popular national vote on abortion? Or gun rights? Or gay marriage? Or sanctuary cities? Or affirmative action? Or any of a hundred other issues that affect one part of the population but nobody else cares about? Isn’t it better to keep the messy system we have, where small groups of people can still win because it’s impossible to ignore them? There comes a moment in everyone’s life when you’re the minority.
There comes a moment when we’re all Wyoming.
Let’s make sure our cowboy hats are creased and our eccentric causes are always heard. Let’s make sure the bigots in New York don’t eliminate the bohemians in Bozeman. The Electoral College works just fine.
Quote of the Times;
“Giving offense is a viewpoint.” – Alito
Link of the Times;
Subscribe or Submit to the Internet's elite source;
Send E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
to complement The Field!