Probably because I have no reason to spend my time trying to prove your points. Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that you can just pull stuff out of your a.s.s. and expect it to be taken as gospel truth. If you are making the claim, you have to provide the proof. You are not correct by default.

I'm going to need something more than your word...sorry. Especially after some of your recent posts. I've never heard of a case where a write-in has won the election but not been allowed to take office because of some paperwork minutia, which seems to be what you are claiming.

It's good practice. Naturally, you will find I am right. But I'm used to that.

Here's a ballot access story from the last election. It states quite clearly that had Nader not qualified himself as a write-in candidate per Georgia law votes for him would not have counted. See? And he was denied access in other states. Hence, you could vote for him, but the votes would not count. Just like I said.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/talla...al/9782922.htm

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.

with regard to ALL government - they all fail/fall, eventually.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Even ones that went for 3,000 or more years eventually ended.

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.

Which of the historical Empires have you in mind with that figure? I cant think of any that survived any way close to that - at least not in any coherent, continuous sense. A major overhaul and bloodletting, and, ok, lets carry on; but that is hardly an 'enduring' government!

Poor Adolf only aimed at a 1,000 year Reich!

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

about 3,500 years or so. http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/ Dynasties came and went, of course, and it was not all wine and song for 3,500 continuous years, but it was never not Egypt, nor was it ever conquered by anyone from outside. So I would say it qualifies! But it ended. But I have to hand it to them. 3,500 years is impressive. We only have 3,200+ to go.

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.

that they went on that long. I understand that there were different dynasties, right enough, but I accept your correction - with thanks!

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

To pick up little tidbits like that! Other Empires went for a long time, too. Persia, Ottoman, etc. Not quite 3,500, but long enough to be impressive.

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.

our jollies; you wont get me to join in consideration of the relative 'impressive' natures of Empire. I feel we must speak of them for what they were, in human terms; people didnt die less horribly, less agonisingly, just because they did so 'historically'.

I invite you to reconsider...?

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

more than 1,000 years or so as "the man" is an impressive feat. Especially when you consider that war was the rule in ancient times and not the exception. I was not really speaking to whether the rulers were impressive or the treatment of people was impressive.

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.