Mike Huckabee Does Not Sleep. He Waits.

Chuck Norris has uppercutted the political world and ripped out the still-beating heart of Michael Barone with his long-waited '08 endorsement.

Though Giuliani might be savvy enough to lead people, Fred Thompson wise enough to wade through the tides of politics, McCain tough enough to fight terrorism and Romney business-minded enough to grow our economy, I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

It's a pretty boring cut-and-paste job until the crescendo.

Huckabee has, and will continue to have, his hecklers: "He hasn't raised enough money." "He'll never beat Hillary." "Our society is too prejudice and paranoid to vote for a once Baptist minister." "He'll never out-race the top four Republican candidates."

I was thinking about these types of comments the other day when I recalled another leader in ancient times that didn't match up in the line up: King David. Seven men were poised and paraded for the position of king, but David was left in the field shepherding because he wasn't "a frontrunner in the polls." They overlooked the best because they were too busy judging by outward appearance. But God appointed David king.

Huckabee hardly needs more God-cred, but until now his attempts to look tough were limited to lecturing Ron Paul about honor. This is big for him. And I suppose it's another loss for Mitt Romney, who wants to win over cultural cons but can't convince them that he bleeds red.

Comments

[Taktix?]

If Huckabee is appointed by his so-called "God" then I'm voting for the other guy...

[SIV]

If Huckabee wins the GOP nomination I'm putting a Hillary sign in the yard.

[Bingo]

When the hell did America start electing kings ordained by God? Am I missing some historical context here?

[Brandybuck]

"He'll never out-race the top four Republican candidates."

You heard it hear first! Chuck Norris proclaims Ron Paul to be in the top four GOP candidates! Giuliani, Romney, McCain and... Paul!

[Marcvs]

Between the link to "WorldFuckingCrazyBastardsNetDaily" and Chuck Norris implying that our president should be appointed by God (or was he saying the Huckabee is like King David? -- either way, NOT GOOD), I feel like I just took the brown acid.

[Warren]

WOW, and here I didn't think I could possibly think any less of Chuck Norris.

[Taktix?]

Huckabee has advanced and fine tuned[sic] his people and oratory skills

When someone has to vouch for your oratory skills, I would assume that they are not exactly fine-tuned.

WOW, and here I didn't think I could possibly think any less of Chuck Norris.

Careful, he might hear you...

[Episiarch]

Well, considering that contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship, this means that Huckabee will be president no matter what--because Chuck has decided.

[DangerMan]

"...16 times had to endure the long nights of the soul before he gave permission for executions to proceed...

Arkansas is the first state to institute Lethal Norris Injection.

[Brian Defferding]

Chuck just wants the Secretary of Defense job if Huck gets the nod.

[mantooth]

"Our society is too prejudice and paranoid to vote for a once Baptist minister..."

Someday the Christian male will be able to walk around with his head held high and have a say in how this country is run. Fight on, brothers.

[Reinmoose]

Our society is too prejudice and paranoid to vote for a once Baptist minister

That's exactly right. There are no other good reasons to not vote for Mike Huckabee.

[joe]

This country needs a good dose of anti-monarchist sentiment.

When people who hold up King David as a model for an American president pledge allegiance to that wonderful old word res-publican, the schools aren't doing their jobs.

[Cesar]

Huckabee represents the worst of Conservative nannyism and Christian fundamentalism.

[Tom W]

My view is that Norris is gunning for the Veep slot.

Chuckabee '08!

[gaijin]

Shouldn't 'action jeans' be crotchless? Just askin'.

[Chris S]

I imagine this is huge news in the World of Warcraft.

[abu hamza]

roundhouse, bitches!

[Abdul]

I expect all anti-Huckabee commenters will soon be found dead with the cause of death listed as "roundhouse kick-related injury."

[Syloson of Samos]

I've decided to support Colbert's run for President ... in South Carolina.

[John Nonconformist]

Please tell me that Americans don't use the delusional political views of the cheesiest actor in American history to as a guide to their own vote. Y'all might be in worse trouble than previously thought.

[scape]

Part of our backward culture is reflected in the fact that we measure and value people by what they do, instead of first who they are.

Did Chuck Norris get his column because he's known for "integrity, commitment, truthfulness and respect" or beause of what he does? That being to create bland, violent televison shows and silly, violent action movies?

Backward culture, indeed.

[Chris S.]

We don't need a president who "grows the economy," "fights terrorism," or "leads." We need one who wades.

[Scott]

"his long-waited '08 endorsement."

Um... Chuck Norris? Long-awaited by whom?

[Episiarch]

Please tell me that Americans don't use the delusional political views of the cheesiest actor in American history to as a guide to their own vote. Y'all might be in worse trouble than previously thought.

Please tell me you actually read the comments in this thread before posting your idiotic comment.

[thoreau]

This country needs a good dose of anti-monarchist sentiment.

Hence my refusal to vote for that candidate who's married to the guy who used to be President.

[Bingo]

joe: antimonarchist sentiment would sure be nice but in 2008 we will have been ruled by a Bush or a Clinton for 20 years. If Hillary is elected it will be 24 years. The scary thing is people don't seem to have a problem with this.

[Fluffy]

Part of our backward culture is reflected in the fact that we measure and value people by what they do, instead of first who they are.

Chuck Norris, moron.

Of course I measure people by what they do and not what they are. That means I hate the President because he led us into an ambush in Iraq and refuses to lead us out because it would hurt his pride - instead of liking him for "what he is". The deed is all that matters in the end.

I have to thank Chuck for giving me another reason to not like Huckabee. If he was one of the jackals involved in the tobacco litigation, he can go fuck himself.

[Taktix?]

antimonarchist sentiment would sure be nice but in 2008 we will have been ruled by a Bush or a Clinton for 20 years. If Hillary is elected it will be 24 years. The scary thing is people don't seem to have a problem with this.

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if Jeb Bush ends up being a nominee in either 2012 or later.

Appalled, yes, but not surprised.

[ed]

When the hell did America start electing kings ordained by God?

Don't laugh. Just the other day we gave a Congressional Medal to the 14th reincarnated Holy Buddhist Fraud, so anything can happen.

[Chris S]

I don't think Norris' recommendation is gong to light up the lolcats community. I also don't see any of the Something Awful forum regulars, or many World of Warcraft players, voting for someone like Huckabee no matter who endorsed him.

[J sub D]

When people who hold up King David as a model for an American president pledge allegiance to that wonderful old word res-publican, the schools aren't doing their jobs.

joe, When people who hold up King David as a model for an American president, the PRIESTS AND MINISTERS aren't doing their jobs.

[joe]

Family members running for office looks a little funny, but it's been a part of democratic-republican politics since John Quincy Adams. And nobody actually believes that being somebody's relative is, by itself, an indication that sombody had the right to rule.

The divine right silliness (such as George Bush talking about how Jesus chose him to be president) and the "if the president does it, it's legal" mentality seem to be slightly more indicative of a monarchist bent to our politics than people voting for the family members of former officeholders.

[thoreau]

joe,

Yes, family members in office has a long history, but it's also interesting that John Q. Adams lost the popular vote and even the electoral vote, but won in the House because nobody got an electoral vote majority. Then the grandson of William Henry Harrison lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote in 1888. And in 2000, the son of George Bush lost the popular vote but won the...well, he won somehow.

Yeah, we've had distant Presidential relatives win the popular AND electoral votes (e.g. FDR), but every time a close relative of a former President runs it seems that popular sentiment turns against that candidate, yet the anti-popular mechanisms in our system gives the victory to that candidate anyway.

There are reasonable arguments to be made for anti-popular mechanisms in our system, and I won't claim that these 3 Presidential relatives constitute adequate counter-arguments. But it's interesting to me how Presidential heirs have repeatedly won under those mechanisms despite their failure to capture popular opinion. It says something about our national character, I think.

[J sub D]

The divine right silliness (such as George Bush talking about how Jesus chose him to be president) and the "if the president does it, it's legal" mentality seem to be slightly more indicative of a monarchist bent to our politics than people voting for the family members of former officeholders.

Damned straight. BTW, Mitt's daddy was a governor and upper tier presidential candidate too.

[ClubMedSux]

Screw Norris; I want to know who Patrick Swayze is endorsing. I think Swayze's position on the use of police force is admirable:

"If somebody gets in your face and calls you a cocksucker, I want you to be nice. Ask him to walk. Be nice. If he won't walk, walk him. But be nice. If you can't walk him, one of the others will help you, and you'll both be nice. I want you to remember that it's a job. It's nothing personal."

[Frank_A]

joe | October 22, 2007, 3:34pm | #

This country needs a good dose of anti-monarchist sentiment.

When people who hold up King David as a model for an American president pledge allegiance to that wonderful old word res-publican, the schools aren't doing their jobs

Here, here.
This brings to mind the prophet 1 Samuel 8:
1 In his old age Samuel appointed his sons judges over Israel.
2
His first-born was named Joel, his second son, Abijah; they judged at Beer-sheba.
3
His sons did not follow his example but sought illicit gain and accepted bribes, perverting justice.
4
Therefore all the elders of Israel came in a body to Samuel at Ramah
5
and said to him, "Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example, appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us."
6
Samuel was displeased when they asked for a king to judge them. He prayed to the LORD, however,
7
who said in answer: "Grant the people's every request. It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king.
8
As they have treated me constantly from the day I brought them up from Egypt to this day, deserting me and worshiping strange gods, so do they treat you too.
9
Now grant their request; but at the same time, warn them solemnly and inform them of the rights of the king who will rule them."
10
Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full to those who were asking him for a king.
11
He told them: "The rights of the king who will rule you will be as follows: He will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and horses, and they will run before his chariot.
12
He will also appoint from among them his commanders of groups of a thousand and of a hundred soldiers. He will set them to do his plowing and his harvesting, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.
13
He will use your daughters as ointment-makers, as cooks, and as bakers.
14
He will take the best of your fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his officials.
15
He will tithe your crops and your vineyards, and give the revenue to his eunuchs and his slaves.
16
He will take your male and female servants, as well as your best oxen and your asses, and use them to do his work.
17
He will tithe your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves.
18
When this takes place, you will complain against the king whom you have chosen, but on that day the LORD will not answer you."

BOO-YAH!

[Syloson of Samos]

FWIW, the Presidency is something like a limited-term, truncated in powers, elected monarchy.

[max gag]

Huckabee
is that the "I don't believe in evolution" guy ?

or the guy that think canadian parlement is an igloo ?

w*w. youtube. com/ watch?v=pYQNo-Xxd0w

LOL

[joe]

You're really bumming me out, thoreau. You makek a lot of good points. Especially this: every time a close relative of a former President runs it seems that popular sentiment turns against that candidate, yet the anti-popular mechanisms in our system gives the victory to that candidate anyway

In the recent Special Election in the Massachusetts 5th - by far the most compelling political story of 2007, I know - Pual Tsongas' widow Nikki was running against an accomplished, respected Lowell City Councillor and former mayor, Eileen Donoghue.

National political figures and political groups - like Emily's List - swooped in and they all backed Nikki. It was really grating, because Eileen was not only a woman candidate, but every bit as good on their issues as Tsongas, and still Emily's List stuck their beaks in. I don't think it's because of monarchist sentiment, but because her status as a Washington Insider, somebody they knew and had gone to cocktail parties with - produced all of this establishment backing.

So, don't worry. That doesn't demonstrate royalist pretensions. Just oligarchy.

[joe]

Once you get into that bit about truncated powers, Syloson, you're acknowledging the substantive difference between a president and a king.

[J sub D]

Huckabee
is that the "I don't believe in evolution" guy ?

Yep.

[Reinmoose]

I didn't think we had either a "president" or a "king." I was under the impression we had a "decider."
Now how did I get that idea?

[Christopher Burch]

Forget all these so called "tough guys". Who would Jack Bauer endorse? Mitt "double gitmo" Romney? Rudy "Freedom is about authority" Giuliani? Tom "Where's Jack" Tancredo? Fred "...Hey Fred Wake UP!" Thompson? John "Straight-talk" McCain?

Or do Clint Eastwood and Charlton Heston come in and slaughter all these folk and put Ron Paul in charge? I can only hope.

[sixstring]

Don't laugh. Just the other day we gave a Congressional Medal to the 14th reincarnated Holy Buddhist Fraud, so anything can happen.

Eh, that was just to poke China in the eye. We had so much fun pissing Turkey off last week over the Armenian genocide condemnation we thought we'd piss off the folks who hold a shitload of our debt. Good times.

[thoreau]

joe, if Hillary is the nominee next November then she will win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote.

Truthfully, the prospect of a Clinton with a dubious mandate would delight me if there were a GOP Congress.

[joe]

That's a bold prediction, thoreau, but it just might be correct.

Maybe, if that happens so soon after 2000, we can finally get rid of or at least reform the Electoral College.

[Marcvs]

The problem isn't election system, it's the retarded preening monkeys that run for office. Only a jackass that likes to force others to do what he wants would choose to run for office. Politicians are basically Cartman without the humor.

Chuck Norris, on the other hand, can't seem to tell when people are having a joke at his expense.

[thoreau]

Chuck Norris, on the other hand, can't seem to tell when people are having a joke at his expense.

There's only one Chuck Norris joke. All the rest are true.

When Chuck Norris is shot the bullet bleeds.

[J sub D]

Maybe, if that happens so soon after 2000, we can finally get rid of or at least reform the Electoral College

2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 (38) of the states is a pretty high bar. Obviously not insurmountable, but difficult to clear. Are the American people that passionate about the electoral college? I don't think so.

BTW, I'd rather be wrong about this.

[Pro Libertate]

thoreau,

You can't fool me. As Norris endorses, thoreau voteses.

[Isaac Bartram]

Truthfully, the prospect of a Clinton with a dubious mandate would delight me if there were a GOP Congress.

I could go for that, especially if the Clinton were Bill.

Goddamned 22nd Amendment.

[joe]

J Sub D,

A high bar indeed. I can see the blue half of the country supporting it, but the red half is who benefits from its existence, in zero-sum political terms.

I can only think of one force powerful enough to make it remotely possible that the Republicans in Congress would go for it: positioning the issue so that eliminating the EC became an expression of Hillary-hatred.

[Syloson of Samos]

I liked the electoral college partly because it spawns endless debates over whether we should keep it or not.

[Wayne Dumond]

Alright! Sex Offenders for Huckabee!!

[J sub D]

I liked the electoral college partly because it spawns endless debates over whether we should keep it or not.

SOS - You must just LOVE affirmative action!

[Brian Courts]

I don't understand all the electoral college hate (from a philosophical sense, I mean - I of course understand why you might not like a particular recent outcome and therefore wish it wasn't there). Any system you choose, though, is arbitrary and will have flaws under any straightforward system of values you'd wish to incorporate. There is nothing special about a simple direct election which requires a plurality of the votes. Under that model, it is not hard to come up with plenty of situations where someone can make a strong case that the system produced the wrong result. Since this will be true of any system you choose, I just don't believe the people that complain about the current system can really be sure that whatever they replace it with will be any better (even more so, since what is "better" is very subjective in the first place).

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"If Huckabee wins the GOP nomination I'm putting a Hillary sign in the yard."

I would think you'd like him SIV, he doesn't believe in science either.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Brian-what do you mean when you say that a direct plurality of votes would have "plenty of situations" where the wrong result was produced? If you mean "wrong" in the sense of electing a dumbass, then of course (that's equally, perhaps more likely under the EC). But at least the plurality ensures that the winner will be the person actually chosen by a majority of citizens playing the game (something that cannot be said under the EC). The EC currently allows someone who did not get a majority of votes to win, something that goes against the Lockean principles upon which this nation is based I should think...

[Brian Courts]

>>antimonarchist sentiment would sure be nice but in 2008 we will have been ruled by a Bush or a Clinton for 20 years. If Hillary is elected it will be 24 years. The scary thing is people don't seem to have a problem with this.

>Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if Jeb Bush ends up being a nominee in either 2012 or later.

Appalled, yes, but not surprised.

And by the time Jeb is out of office Chelsea will be old enough to run...

[Brian Courts]

But at least the plurality ensures that the winner will be the person actually chosen by a majority of citizens

No it doesn't. For example, say you have 3 candidates and about 2/3 of the people hate candidate A, but they split their votes between candidates B & C, leaving A to squeak out a narrow victory with barely more than 1/3 of the vote. Then you get a president who is opposed by nearly 2/3 of the population.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Brian-you are right, but you do get the one candidate who had the most votes of all the candidates running. I'm not sure how the EC would give you any different result in your example (that is, you would still get a candidate opposed by 2/3 of the population).

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Any system that lets more than two candidates run runs the risk of what you mention, right (I don't mean that sarcastically, I'm fighting through cold meds [the ones that do not work in children they say] to think of the hypotheticals as we speak)

[Cesar]

The solution is for each state to pass a law stating that it will cast its electoral votes for whichever candidate wins the popular vote, but the law will only become effective when a combination of states that make up a majority of the electoral college pass the same law.

[Cesar]

We also desperately need kin limits in addition to term limits. No one in the same family should be able to be President for 50 years since the last one left office.

[joe]

Brian Courts,

It isn't the outcomes that bothers me. It's the violation of the principle of one-man-one-vote.

Protecting regional minorities is a perfectly valid goal, but by assigning EVs in a manner that artificially weights smaller states, we end with some regional minorities whose residents exert disproportionate power compared to other regional minorities.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Joe-I'm against the EC for the reason I stated. I'm not sure of the pluses of protecting regional minorities over and above a national majority (and especially don't know how we should play off the power of different regional minorities). For the consent of the governed to have legitimacy then everyone should have one vote and a majority should win, right?
The Senate has a similar issue imo. Why idaho should have as many votes as NY is beyond me.

[thoreau]

Protecting regional minorities is a perfectly valid goal, but by assigning EVs in a manner that artificially weights smaller states, we end with some regional minorities whose residents exert disproportionate power compared to other regional minorities.

Exactly. I could point to Ventura County and say "Gee, Ventura County is so out-numbered by the rest of America. Why aren't their interests subject to special protection like Vermont?"

The most important minority to protect is the minority of one. And for that we have a Bill of Rights. We also have (sorry, had) a system of checks and balances to slow government action, because unrestrained power is the greatest threat to any individual.

[Brian Courts]

The solution is for each state to pass a law stating that it will cast its electoral votes for whichever candidate wins the popular vote.

This assumes that the "solution" produces results "better" than the current system, which is certainly unproved - and actually unprovable (see below).

I'm not sure how the EC would give you any different result in your example

It would depend on where the relative strengths of the candidates were (does all of New York and California prefer one candidate, for example). But of course I wasn't arguing the the EC would produce a good result in any particular situation (again depends on what "good" means) - just that no system can guarantee a "good" result, (and again, assuming we can even agree on a few simple values that any system should produce). This general result is proven in Arrow's Impossibility Theorem

I guess in the end one could make an empirical argument about the likelihood of particular "bad outcomes" for a proposed system based on typical demographics, etc., but the point is that any system you choose can produce results that are not consistent with a simple set of seemingly obvious values (see Arrow). But, if we're going to need to look at empirical likeliehoods, we ought to note that the EC has only very rarely differed with the results a plurality system would have produced (not that that is some perfect standard) so how "unlikely" would any other system need to produce "bad" results before it is any significant improvement on the current system?

[thoreau]

Arrow proved that no voting system can simultaneously satisfy a certain set of criteria. That's not quite the same as saying that no system can always give a good result. It depends on what you mean by "good."

Approval Voting (google it) is pretty good, IMHO.

[Brian Courts]

It depends on what you mean by "good."

Of course, as I stated several times.

Arrow proved that no voting system can simultaneously satisfy a certain set of criteria. That's not quite the same as saying that no system can always give a good result.

But it is essentially the same thing if you agree that that very limited set of criteria are all desirable (which they certainly would apprear to be to most people, I'd argue).

[thoreau]

P.S. Somebody will probably say "One of Arrow's criteria was non-dictatorship. That's obviously good!" Yes. Yes it is. However, just about any voting system satisfies that. Same for Pareto, another criterion put in for largely technical reasdons.

The key criterion was called Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). That's the big stumbling block. A weaker version of IIA can be satisfied with Condorcet methods.

Also, Arrow had a hidden assumption that doesn't get talked about a lot: He assumed that the ballots are only based on rankings. So if I like A better than B and B better than C then that's what matters. OTOH, suppose we assign them points on a scale of, say, 0 to 5. Giving 2 points to my middle choice won't have the same effect as giving 3 points to my middle choice. So there's more information on my ballot than just A>B>C.

If this is all confusing, well, the takeaway lesson is that you can't just invoke Arrow to say that no method guarantees good results. There's a bit more to it than that.

[joe]

Mistah Niceguy,

For the consent of the governed to have legitimacy then everyone should have one vote and a majority should win, right?

The first part, absolutely. As for the second part, it's not immediately obvious to me. I like the idea of candidates having to pay at least some attention to the whole map.

[thoreau]

Sorry, Brian, we're cross-posting.

I'd say that IIA is by no means an obviously "good" criterion, or at least it's not obviously necessary for a good outcome.

[J sub D]

...in 2008 we will have been ruled by a Bush or a Clinton for 20 years. If Hillary is elected it will be 24 years. The scary thing is people don't seem to have a problem with this.

>Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if Jeb Bush ends up being a nominee in either 2012 or later.

Appalled, yes, but not surprised.

And by the time Jeb is out of office Chelsea will be old enough to run...

Bhutto, Musharraf, Bhutto, Musharraf ...
Just kidding, I think.

[Aresen]

The Book of Huckabee; Ch VII:

1) And among the people there were casteth 47,426,221 votes for Hillary of the Clintons, the wife of Bill.
2) And among the people there were casteth 47,426,221 votes for Rudy of the Guilianis, the husband of many.
3) And among the people there were casteth no votes for Mike of the Huckabees, the Chosen of God.
4) And God was sore displeased.
5) And God smote the electoral college.
6) And the electoral college casteth 536 votes for Mike of the Huckabees and one vote for each of Hillary of the Clintons and Rudy of the Guilianis.
7) And Lo! Mike of the Huckabees was inagurated anointed as the Chosen of God to be His President forever.
8) And the one of the electoral college who casteth his vote for Hillary and the one of the electoral college who casteth his vote for Rudy were thrown into the pit to dwell in darkness forever.

[Brian Courts]

I'd say that IIA is by no means an obviously "good" criterion,

Well, I guess I'd say it "seems" obviously good on its face, but perhaps some of the arguments that it is unnecessarily strong for might make sense (I haven't really thought about it that much).

Ultimately I'm not saying that no system is "better" than any other - but one, what is better, as we mentioned, is open to debate and two, that the most people who want to do away with the EC seem to assume that a simple plurality system is going to be "better" (yes, assuming we can agree on that) and I don't think that assumption is so patently obvious, or even necessarily correct. Ultimately there might well be a system that most of us would agree is better (maybe your approval voting example) but it certainly isn't a trivial question and there are likely to be unintended consequences to any change we make.

[J sub D]

Aresen, Your 8:08pm post was pure beauty. Yes, it was BS, but beautiful BS.

[J sub D]

thoreau and Brian Courts,

All philosophy aside, the question about EC is "Should my vote become more powerful/valuable by virtue of me moving to a less populous state?" To me it's an ethical question, not game theory. No offense intended.

[thoreau]

IIA can be considered a good criterion, but a system could be "good" and still fail IIA, if you don't see IIA as being a necessary criterion.

As for a weaker IIA: Basically, the standard IIA says that adding or removing a candidate shouldn't change the outcome unless you add the new winner or remove the old winner. A weaker IIA says that adding or removing a candidate shouldn't change the winner unless the candidate being added can beat the old winner pairwise (i.e. one-on-one race) or the candidate being removed can beat the old winner pairwise.

Systems that pass IIA: Any Condorcet method does. For those unfamiliar with the concept, these are where you elect the candidate who can beat all others one-on-one, unless there's no such candidate because A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. (And yes, that can happen in the real world if different people evaluate the candidates on different criteria, i.e. the candidates don't just fall on a 1D ideological spectrum where the centrist wins. We libertarians should be comfortable with the notion of having more than 1 axis for ideological stances.)

Of course, the problem with Condorcet methods is that you need a "backup" method to use when there is no candidate who beats all the others pairwise. And I'm sure that everybody has a perfectly reasonable proposal for what that backup should be. Guess what? Everybody else has a different but perfectly reasonable proposal. Many of them are quite obscure or complicated, and nobody is backing down.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of Condorcet methods for practical purposes, but they are useful for demonstrating that it is possible to satisfy a weaker form of IIA.

[Aresen]

J sub D

I have a weakness for religious movies, especially the parts where God gets around to smoting.

God's a real heavy smoter.

[J sub D]

Aresen, when I first read the old testament, from In the beginning... thru ...lest I come and smite the earth with a curse., I was shocked, to say the least. One can only conclude that the Christian (and Jewish, and Islamic) God is a bloodthirsty asshole. If he existed, and proved it to me, I'd rather go to hell than worship that SOB. I have my pride!

But live and let live. I really like the upcoming Xmas season, even the carols, the creche displays the whole saturnalia related gift thingy. I'm not a fundy but more of a universalist/unitarian kind of atheist.

[J sub D]

And that is the end of the King James Version I quoted above. How approprriate.

[Cesar]

Aresen, when I first read the old testament, from In the beginning... thru ...lest I come and smite the earth with a curse., I was shocked, to say the least. One can only conclude that the Christian (and Jewish, and Islamic) God is a bloodthirsty asshole. If he existed, and proved it to me, I'd rather go to hell than worship that SOB. I have my pride!

Wow J sub D you summed up my feelings about the Bible better than anyone else could. Jesus was cool, kind of a Jewish sage/rebel leader, but the old testament god is a jackass.

[thoreau]

Jesus was cool, kind of a Jewish sage/rebel leader, but the old testament god is a jackass.

The Old Testament God hadn't gotten laid. The New Testament God got it on with Mary and was in a better mood afterward.

[SIV]

joe,

Those "regional minorities" are usually known as States.... as in the United STATES of America. Read your Constitution, the President is elected by States, not directly by the people.I question your Civic Literacy.

As Dan T. would say if you don't like the United States Constitution why don't you just.....

Aeroflot is ready when you are!

[Aresen]

J sub D

Exactly. The crimes attributed to God are incredible, all excused on the grounds that the victims were unbelievers or blasphemers.

A particular nasty one from 2Kings, Ch II:

[23] And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
[24] And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

IOW, a bunch of children called Elisha a bald-headed old coot (which he was) and he cursed them in "the name of the LORD" and caused two bears to kill forty-two children!

Cesar

The nastiness doesn't stop in the Old Testament. Try The Revelation of St. John the Divine.

[Pro Libertate]

The Electoral College is just one of the many checks on concentrated power. Of course, if you really want to keep heading headlong towards national government, then go ahead and get rid of it. Me, I prefer more limits, not fewer. The Constitution intentionally avoided overemphasizing direct democracy in our system for a reason.

[thoreau]

PL-

I would just point out that George W. Bush, the most powerful and dangerous US President ever, lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. And while I won't say that this was a major factor in the dangers he has posed, it is interesting that he has made a big point of playing to the base.

Granted, there have only been a few times when the popular and electoral votes didn't coincide, but I don't see any evidence that the handful of popular vote losers (Adams II, Hayes, Harrison II, and Bush II) were all that much better than the others. Indeed, Bush II is objectively the most dangerous US President ever.

[thoreau]

PL-

Do you find it interesting that the list of popular vote losers includes Adams II, Harrison II, and Bush II? Notice anything about the recurring II?

[BakedPenguin]

J sub D - you'd probably like Japanese Christmas. Don't forget your Christmas cake.

[Hyperbole !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Indeed, Bush II is objectively the most dangerous US President ever.

I will grant Bush is the "most dangerous President ever" in that he is the only one currently in power. Nearly all of his predecessors are dead and hence not a threat.

If you think he is the most damaging to liberty
that is not "objective" and indicates you are suffering from the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as much as the most stark raving lefty.

Explain the "danger" posed by Bush that is so much worse than his predecessors?

[smartass sob]

God's a real heavy smoter.

It's smiter - God's a real heavy smiter. Smite is present tense; smote is past tense.

[Aresen]

God will smote any smartass sob who corrects HIS grammar.

😉

[smartass sob]

Aresen,

Touche! 😉

[smartass sob]

I wish someone would smite the H&R server squirrels - they seem to have an acorn or something stuck in their wheel again.

[thoreau]

Explain the "danger" posed by Bush that is so much worse than his predecessors?

1) Indefinite detention without trial for anybody that he deems a terrorist.

2) Warrantless wiretaps whenever he feels like it.

3) Torture.

4) While all of these things have been done on some scale by wartime Presidents, he has claimed that this is an inherent and unlimited power, and he has done this in the context of a conflict that he predicts will never end. A Republic cannot endure perpetual war.

So yes, he is the most dangerous President in American history.

[smartass sob]

So yes, he is the most dangerous President in American history.

Either he or the man who has his hand up Georgie's ass pulling the strings and levers - namely, Cheney.

The most dangerous thing about George W. Bush is that he believes his own bullshit.

[tarran]

thoreau,

When Bush starts deporting democratic congressmen, then, and only then, will he surpass Lincoln as the most dangerous president to date.

[SIV]

A Republic cannot endure perpetual war.

His term is up in 14 months. So does our next President become "the most dangerous ever" on inauguration day? The system and powers remain in place- much as they were there before Bush took office they will pass on to his predecessor.

We have some small say in who wields executive power. We have none on the continuation of the real enemy-The State.

[SIV]

Not predecessor I mean hus successor Damn it.

[ktd]

I think some of y'all are misunderstanding 2 things:
1. It was a joke about Chuck Norris 'appointing' the 'king.' Chill out. I don't think the whole country is going to say we should go to a monarchy because Chuck Norris says so...which he didn't.
2. Whether you believe in Him or not, God does have a part in every political leader. If it weren't for God, no political leader would be in their political position/office.

[R C Dean]

It isn't the outcomes that bothers me. It's the violation of the principle of one-man-one-vote.

Depends on how you count. Electoral college members are apportioned to each state in accordance with the number of members of Congress (Reps and Sens) that state has. Thus:

Within the boundaries of each state, its one-man, one-vote.

Between states, the disparities are the same as they are in Congress, so the EC is no more a violation of one-man-one-vote than Congress is. It may even be better than Congress, since DC gets three delegates to the EC.

Not sure what the worst case scenario is, but I would be willing to bet that it is not possible for a candidate to lose a two-man race with more than, say, 53% of the popular vote. I bet someone's done the analysis, but my guess is its pretty damn hard to lose with a solid majority of the popular vote.

Really, the EC exists as a reminder that this is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.

[Pro Libertate]

thoreau,

Changing Constitutional principles because of a bad president seems a little unwarranted. There is no popular election of presidents. There never has been. There are excellent reasons for not doing so. If our overarching ideal is "democracy", then we need to get rid of the Senate, too.

The problems with Bush are systemic problems that have been allowed to fester by the people. We've allowed federal power to grow unchecked, and the branches don't even do their basic job of limiting the power of the other branches. Don't like Bush? Then change the system to prevent someone like him from abusing power. Hand boatloads of power to any man during any kind of emergency, and you'll see all sorts of unpleasantness. I doubt Gore would've been much (if at all) better post-9/11, if the national security and law enforcement culture of the peaceful 90s is any guide.

[The Democratic Republican]

Aresen -- "The Revelation of St. John the Divine" is the most libertarian book in the Bible. It is a COMPLETE criticism and rejection of imperial oppression and the political conditions put upon free trade. That's what the tirade about the "mark of the Beast" really is -- a rejection of having to worship Caesar (or take part in an oppressive regime in general) in order to trade.

[Aresen]

TDR

I agree it is a protest against the Ceasars. However, the "cure" - the Second Coming of Christ the King - is hardly libertarian.

The Second Coming might be great for the Elect - all 144,000 of them - but it will be a total bummer for the rest of us.

[R C Dean]

Indeed, Bush II is objectively the most dangerous US President ever.

Most of what people cite when they say things like this are infringements on civil liberties. On that front, Bush has, at most, implemented marginal increases on policies already proposed and/or approved by his predecessors. Seriously. You can look it up. Take rendition - it goes back to the '60s, maybe '70s. Warrantless wiretaps - take a look at Echelon, a Clinton program.

In my mind, the title of most dangerous President ever doesn't go to someone who makes only marginal infringements on liberty. It goes to someone who really cranks up the power of the state by an order of magnitude. I don't think Bush, for all the damage he has done, has done that.

[thoreau]

PL-

Bush isn't my main argument against the EC. But it is interesting to say that the EC helps check federal power when it has brought us the most dangerous President ever. Hardly a sufficient argument against the EC, but food for thought.

Seriously. The EC advocates need a better argument than "The process that rejected the popular vote winner in favor of Torture King is essential to restraining federal power."

[thoreau]

R C-

Yes, the rot goes back some time. What Bush has done is bring it into the open and declare that it's OK. As long as they have to insist that "It's only a few bad apples" or "Only in special cases" and they feel a need to maintain some plausible deniability, there's a limit on how much they can do.

But once they go with "I have the inherent power to do whatever I want any time I want!" then the game is up.

Finally, in regards to whether Gore would have been worse: I'm willing to believe that an unchecked Al Gore would have been about the same, or at least close. But there's no way that a GOP Congress would have let Al Gore get away with much. Checks and balances between branches are the real genius of the system, far more important than occasionally handing the Presidency to somebody who didn't win the popular vote (and, curiously, in 3 of 4 cases somebody from a Presidential family).

[Pro Libertate]

Neither the Electoral College nor a popular election of the president will do anything to change what a president can do in office. There are a number of different checks on federal power vis-&agrave-vis the states, the people, and the various federal branches. The latter is the piece that's really broken in our system.

[Pro Libertate]

Oops--make that

[thoreau]

Neither the Electoral College nor a popular election of the president will do anything to change what a president can do in office.

Exactly. The EC isn't a check on federal power.

FWIW, I'm not really interested in pushing for EC abolition at this point, because we have more basic things to worry about, like torture. Yep, America has to worry about torture.

However, I refuse to tolerate any platitudes about how the EC protects us from federal power. The EC gave us The Torture Decider. That may not be sufficient argument against it (there are plenty of other reasons why he did what he did, and perhaps under a different system he would have found a way to campaign and win) but it certainly gives lie to the notion that it is a valuable check on federal power.

[joe]

SIV,

At this point, it should have begun to occur to you that I am not, in fact, an idiot. What's this you say about "states?" Big boys acknowledge that political differences arent' actually the consequence of everyone who disagrees with you not having a third-grade understanding of how the government works.

Anyway, you failed to offer any justificatin whatsoever for WHY 500,000 people living in a small state should have more political power per capita than 500,000 people living in a large state.

All you've done is attempt to justify political inequality by noting that it is the status quo.

Not good enough.

[joe]

RC Dean,

Between states, the disparities are the same as they are in Congress, so the EC is no more a violation of one-man-one-vote than Congress is. Yes. The distribution of Senate seats violates the principle of political equality, too.

Really, the EC exists as a reminder that this is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. That's not the problem I have with it. The problem is that the representation provided in this republic is unequal.

I would be ok with assigning EVs based on House seats.

[Pro Libertate]

The Electoral College doesn't limit the power of the federal government except to the extent that it helps preserve the remnants of federalism. Which is a check on federal power, though an ever diminishing one.

As I recall, the difference in the popular numbers was too close to say that Gore would've won a popular election. Voter turnout in our existing system is affected considerably by the way a state votes--e.g., many Republicans in Massachusetts during 2004 probably didn't bother voting.

Bush won the election--the Florida complaints (EC issues aside) were largely illusory. We knowingly elected someone who wasn't qualified for office. What we didn't know was that, unlike in the 90s, the quality of the occupant of the White House was going to matter quite a bit.

joe,

So if New York grew to 50 million residents, then you'd be okay when all federal services went to help New York? You also oppose the existence of the Senate? The anti-democratic Supreme Court?

[joe]

Pro Libertate,

Neither the Electoral College nor a popular election of the president will do anything to change what a president can do in office.

No. It will also not paint my house, wash my car, or put out the fires in California.

It will, however, bring our system closer to one-man-one-vote, which is a good in and of itself.

[joe]

Pro Lib,

Voter turnout in our existing system is affected considerably by the way a state votes--e.g., many Republicans in Massachusetts during 2004 probably didn't bother voting. Sounds like a pretty good argument for tweaking the system.

So if New York grew to 50 million residents, then you'd be okay when all federal services went to help New York? Huh?

You also oppose the existence of the Senate? No, I like having two houses, but I'd prefer to see Senate seats distributed more fairly.

The anti-democratic Supreme Court? The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be representative. The Presidency and the Senate are.

[Pro Libertate]

joe,

No, it isn't. You're engaging in a tautology. This country was founded upon and is still generally structured on the concept that personal liberty is the end goal, not democracy. We can aim to have both, and we do to a good extent, but the dangers of an overly democratic system are all-too apparent.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you see democratic principles as the pot at the end of the rainbow. They are no such thing. We can democratically torture people, democratically oppress minorities, democratically do any damned thing the majority wants.

[R C Dean]

joe, I don't think you really understand how our representative republic was designed.

It was intended to represent both the individual citizen (via the House) and the states (via the Senate).

The growth of the federal government, leading to the many abuses of its power that you decry on these boards, can be traced pretty much back to popular election of Senators. When that happened, a major check on the power of the federal government was removed.

The Senate isn't supposed to be "one-man, one-vote". Its supposed to be "one-state, two-votes." Complaining that the Senate is inconsistent with pure democracy misses the point of the Senate.

[thoreau]

PL-

I find it interesting that this most dangerous of administrations has operated on the notion that the enduring support of a core contingent is all that really matters, no matter how many people they piss off. This same administration also learned that you don't need popular support to win an election.

I won't claim that losing the popular vote was the straw that broke the camel's back and convinced them that they can do as they please, but it's an interesting juxtaposition of circumstances. It should give pause to those who continue to insist that the anti-popular mechanisms of the EC must be some sort of essential check on the feds.

[Pro Libertate]

thoreau,

I don't need to tell you how much I despise this administration or the general state of the federal government today--an increasingly unlimited leviathan that is a bane to our "cherished freedoms." But the failings of Bush aren't because he lacks popular support. He won in 2000 by a hair, and even the popular vote difference of a few hundred thousand (out of a hundred million) is statistically insignificant as an indicator of popularity versus unpopularity.

And it gets worse. Bush won the 2004 election by a wider margin--35 electoral votes and over three million "popular votes." So he got the post-9/11 nasty business mandate, such as it were.

The problem is fundamental. Give Congress and the president unlimited power, and they will use it. If Jesus Christ serves as president in 2008, then he won't abuse the power. He can be trusted. But what about the next guy? And the next one? It's the unfettered ability to act without accountability that's the problem. We'll get the bad actors from time to time, but if we limit their ability to do bad things, then we are safe. Relying on the electoral process to elect only the "right" people to hold great power is incredibly foolhardy.

[Donny Ferguson]

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Mike Huckabee hasn't taxed into extinction.

Mike Huckabee has two speeds: Walk, and Regulate.

Mike Huckabee once ate three 72-ounce steaks in an hour. He spent the first 45 minutes enforcing his restaurant smoking ban.

Mike Huckabee CAN believe it's not butter, as all trans fats will be outlawed if he is elected President.

Mike Huckabee once worked as a weatherman for the Little Rock evening news. Every night he would make the same forecast: Partly cloudy with a 100% chance of higher taxes.

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Mike Huckabee can actually raise your taxes yesterday.

Mike Huckabee puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. The only difference is, then he creates massively expensive welfare programs.

[SIV]

joe,

At this point, it should have begun to occur to you that I am not, in fact, an idiot.

I'm still waiting for the evidence.

[meerdahl]

I was hoping for more Chuck Norris jokes in this thread, so here goes:

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever.
Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris, you may be only seconds away from death.
Chuck Norris has counted to infinity. Twice.
Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting implies the probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.
Chuck Norris doesn't wash his clothes, he disembowels them.
Chuck Norris is 1/8th Cherokee. This has nothing to do with ancestry, the man ate a f***ing Indian.
In fine print on the last page of the Guinness Book of World Records it notes that all world records are held by Chuck Norris, and those listed in the book are simply the closest anyone else has ever gotten.
There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist.
Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, went back in time, and killed Amelia Earhart while she was flying over thePacific Ocean.
Crop circles are Chuck Norris' way of telling the world that sometimes corn needs to lie the f*** down.
Chuck Norris is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and could eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
The Great Wall of China was originally created to keep Chuck Norris out. It failed miserably.
If you ask Chuck Norris what time it is, he always says, "Two seconds 'till." After you ask, "Two seconds 'til what?" he roundhouse kicks you in the face.
Chuck Norris drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls.
Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse-kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
Chuck Norris once ate three 72 oz. steaks in one hour. He spent the first 45 minutes having sex with his waitress.
Chuck Norris is the only man to ever defeat a brick wall in a game of tennis.
Chuck Norris doesn't churn butter. He roundhouse kicks the cows and the butter comes straight out.
When Chuck Norris sends in his taxes, he sends blank forms and includes only a picture of himself, crouched and ready to attack. Chuck Norris has not had to pay taxes ever.
The quickest way to a man's heart is with Chuck Norris' fist.
A Handicap parking sign does not signify that this spot is for handicapped people. It is actually in fact a warning, that the spot belongs to Chuck Norris and that you will be handicapped if you park there.
Chuck Norris will attain statehood in 2009. His state flower will be the Magnolia.
Nagasaki never had a bomb dropped on it. Chuck Norris jumped out of a plane and punched the ground.
Chuck Norris originally appeared in the "Street Fighter II" video game, but was removed by Beta Testers because every button caused him to do a roundhouse kick. When asked bout this "glitch," Norris replied, "That's no glitch."
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodge ball Chuck Norris played in second grade.
Chuck Norris once shot down a German fighter plane with his finger, by yelling, "Bang!"
Chuck Norris once bet NASA he could survive re-entry without a spacesuit. On July 19th, 1999, a naked Chuck Norris re-entered the earth's atmosphere, streaking over 14 states and reaching a temperature of 3000 degrees. An embarrassed NASA publicly claimed it was a meteor, and still owes him a beer.
Chuck Norris has two speeds: Walk and Kill.
Someone once tried to tell Chuck Norris that roundhouse kicks aren't the best way to kick someone. This has been recorded by historians as the worst mistake anyone has ever made.
Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is based on a true story: Chuck Norris once swallowed a turtle whole, and when he crapped it out, the turtle was six feet tall and had learned karate.
Chuck Norris is not hung like a horse... horses are hung like Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris is the only human being to display the Heisenberg uncertainty principle -- you can never know both exactly where and how quickly he will roundhouse-kick you in the face.
Chuck Norris can drink an entire gallon of milk in forty-seven seconds.
Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother's womb.
If you say Chuck Norris' name in Mongolia, the people there will roundhouse kick you in his honor. Their kick will be followed by the REAL roundhouse delivered by none other than Norris himself.
Time waits for no man. Unless that man is Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris discovered a new theory of relativity involving multiple universes in which Chuck Norris is even more badass than in this one. When it was discovered by Albert Einstein and made public, Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicked him in the face. We know Albert Einstein today as Stephen Hawking.
The Chuck Norris military unit was not used in the game Civilization 4, because a single Chuck Norris could defeat the entire combined nations of the world in one turn.
In an average living room there are 1,242 objects Chuck Norris could use to kill you, including the room itself.
Chuck Norris does not teabag the ladies. He potato-sacks them.
Pluto is actually an orbiting group of British soldiers from the American Revolution who entered space after the Chuck gave them a roundhouse kick to the face.
When Chuck Norris goes to donate blood, he declines the syringe, and instead requests a hand gun and a bucket.
There are no weapons of mass destruction. Just Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris once challenged Lance Armstrong in a "Who has more testicles?" contest. Chuck Norris won by 5.
Chuck Norris was the fourth wise man, who gave baby Jesus the gift of beard, which he carried with him until he died. The other three wise men were enraged by the preference that Jesus showed to Chuck's gift, and arranged to have him written out of the bible. All three died soon after of mysterious roundhouse-kick related injuries.
Chuck Norris sheds his skin twice a year.
When Chuck Norris calls 1-900 numbers, he doesn't get charged. He holds up the phone and money falls out.
Chuck Norris once ate a whole cake before his friends could tell him there was a stripper in it.
There are no races, only countries of people Chuck Norris has beaten to different shades of black and blue.
Chuck Norris can't finish a "color by numbers" because his markers are filled with the blood of his victims. Unfortunately, all blood is dark red.
A Chuck Norris-delivered Roundhouse Kick is the preferred method of execution in 16 states.
When Chuck Norris falls in water, Chuck Norris doesn't get wet. Water gets Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris's urine was the main ingredient for balco's designer steroids. Therefore, Chuck Norris is actually the all-time single-season home run king.
Scientists have estimated that the energy given off during the Big Bang is roughly equal to 1CNRhK (Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick)
Chuck Norris' house has no doors, only walls that he walks through.
When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it won't be because he is gay. It will be because he has run out of women.
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could Chuck Norris? ...All of it.
Chuck Norris doesn't actually write books, the words assemble themselves out of fear.
In honor of Chuck Norris, all McDonald's in Texas have an even larger size than the super-size. When ordering, just ask to be "Norrisized".
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
If tapped, a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick could power the country of Australia for 44 minutes.
The grass is always greener on the other side, unless Chuck Norris has been there. In that case the grass is most likely soaked in blood and tears.
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris invented his own type of karate. It's called Chuck-Will-Kill.
When an episode of Walker Texas Ranger was aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side.
While urinating, Chuck Norris is easily capable of welding titanium.
Chuck Norris once sued the Houghton-Mifflin textbook company when it became apparent that their account of the war of 1812 was plagiarized from his autobiography.
When Steven Seagal kills a ninja, he only takes its hide. When Chuck Norris kills a ninja, he uses every part.
Wilt Chamberlain claims to have slept with more than 20,000 women in his lifetime. Chuck Norris calls this "a slow Tuesday."
Contrary to popular belief, there is indeed enough Chuck Norris to go around.
Chuck Norris doesn't shave; he kicks himself in the face. The only thing that can cut Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris.
For some, the left testicle is larger than the right one. For Chuck Norris, each testicle is larger than the other one.
When taking the SAT, write "Chuck Norris" for every answer. You will score a 1600.
Chuck Norris invented black. In fact, he invented the entire spectrum of visible light. Except pink. Tom Cruise invented pink.
When you're Chuck Norris, anything + anything is equal to 1. One roundhouse kick to the face.
Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game UNO.
On his birthday, Chuck Norris randomly selects one lucky child to be thrown into the sun.
Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee. Except Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris doesn't throw up if he drinks too much. Chuck Norris throws down!
In the beginning there was nothing...then Chuck Norris Roundhouse kicked that nothing in the face and said "Get a job". That is the story of the universe.
Chuck Norris has 12 moons. One of those moons is the Earth.
Chuck Norris grinds his coffee with his teeth and boils the water with his own rage.
Archeologists unearthed an old English dictionary dating back to the year 1236. It defined "victim" as "one who has encountered Chuck Norris"
Chuck Norris ordered a Big Mac at Burger King, and got one.
Chuck Norris and Mr. T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly destroyed, as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.
If you Google search "Chuck Norris getting his ass kicked" you will generate zero results. It just doesn't happen.
Chuck Norris doesn't bowl strikes, he just knocks down one pin and the other nine faint.
The show Survivor had the original premise of putting people on an island with Chuck Norris. there were no survivors and the pilot episode tape has been burned.
Chuck Norris brings the noise AND the funk.
You know how they say if you die in your dream then you will die in real life? In actuality, if you dream of death then Chuck Norris will find you and kill you.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
When Chuck Norris is in a crowded area, he doesn't walk around people. He walks through them
James Cameron wanted Chuck Norris to play the Terminator. However, upon reflection, he realized that would have turned his movie into a documentary, so he went with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Chuck Norris can touch MC Hammer.
Little known medical fact: Chuck Norris invented the Caesarean section when he roundhouse-kicked his way out of his mother's womb.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.