<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Loy&#039;s Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.loybanks.com/blog/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog</link>
	<description>Political and Personal Issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:09:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Obama&#8217;s Entourage Surpassing the Queen&#8217;s &#8211; His trip to England 2009 by owen shelton</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/102/obamas-entourage-surpassing-the-queens-his-trip-to-england-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-394</link>
		<dc:creator>owen shelton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=102#comment-394</guid>
		<description>If Mcfeatters wrote that I think it is an outright lie.   does he have proof? was he there and saw that.    It is one thing to have your view but when they resort to distorting the news to suit their twisted outlook is another matter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Mcfeatters wrote that I think it is an outright lie.   does he have proof? was he there and saw that.    It is one thing to have your view but when they resort to distorting the news to suit their twisted outlook is another matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Obama Is Not A Citizen of The United States of America by Tweets that mention Obama Is Not A Citizen of The United States of America - Loy's Blog -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/493/obama-is-not-a-citizen-of-the-united-states-of-america/comment-page-1/#comment-393</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Obama Is Not A Citizen of The United States of America - Loy's Blog -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:37:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=493#comment-393</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Loy Banks. Loy Banks said: New blog post: Obama Is Not A Citizen of The United States of America: http://tinyurl.com/24qbnz8 Go now! [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Loy Banks. Loy Banks said: New blog post: Obama Is Not A Citizen of The United States of America: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/24qbnz8" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/24qbnz8</a> Go now! [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Obama&#8217;s Entourage Surpassing the Queen&#8217;s &#8211; His trip to England 2009 by Tonopah2</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/102/obamas-entourage-surpassing-the-queens-his-trip-to-england-2009/comment-page-1/#comment-391</link>
		<dc:creator>Tonopah2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=102#comment-391</guid>
		<description>Don’t all dictators travel like this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don’t all dictators travel like this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Bank of America &#8211; Credit Card Companies raising all their rates + APR by google adsense</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/51/bank-of-america-credit-card-companies-raising-all-their-rates-apr/comment-page-1/#comment-390</link>
		<dc:creator>google adsense</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=51#comment-390</guid>
		<description>TY GR8 more is better right! Good info. Tweet it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TY GR8 more is better right! Good info. Tweet it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Miller Farms Equine &#8211; Mad As Hell with AARP, Government and Illegal Immigrants by ceckman@alumcoprecision.com</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/420/miller-farms-equine-mad-as-hell-with-aarp-government-and-illegal-immigrants/comment-page-1/#comment-389</link>
		<dc:creator>ceckman@alumcoprecision.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:10:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=420#comment-389</guid>
		<description>Thought you would like this....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thought you would like this&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Congress-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were responsible by Dennis Meyer by Tweets that mention Congress-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were responsible by Dennis Meyer &#124; Loy's Blog -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/477/congress-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-were-responsible-by-dennis-meyer/comment-page-1/#comment-380</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Congress-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were responsible by Dennis Meyer &#124; Loy's Blog -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 May 2010 19:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=477#comment-380</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Loy Banks. Loy Banks said: New blog post: Congress-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were responsible by Dennis Meyer: http://tinyurl.com/32j9plh Go now! [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Loy Banks. Loy Banks said: New blog post: Congress-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were responsible by Dennis Meyer: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/32j9plh" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/32j9plh</a> Go now! [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Retribution is less than 1 year away! Vote them OUT! by Tweets that mention Retribution is less than one year away &#124; Loy's Blog -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/404/404/comment-page-1/#comment-281</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Retribution is less than one year away &#124; Loy's Blog -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:18:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=404#comment-281</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Loy Banks, Gary L Beasley. Gary L Beasley said: RT @loybanks: New blog post: Retribution is less than 1 year away! Vote them OUT!: http://tinyurl.com/yjfquhf Go now! [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Loy Banks, Gary L Beasley. Gary L Beasley said: RT @loybanks: New blog post: Retribution is less than 1 year away! Vote them OUT!: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yjfquhf" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/yjfquhf</a> Go now! [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Message from Center for Individual Freedom &#8211; Very Important by Lisa Krempasky</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/79/message-from-center-for-individual-freedom-very-important/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Krempasky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=79#comment-53</guid>
		<description>The extreme left is doing everything possible to throw everything at us.  The goal is to overwhlem and thereby freeze us.  They will NOT be successful.  Keep up the good work and keep getting the word out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The extreme left is doing everything possible to throw everything at us.  The goal is to overwhlem and thereby freeze us.  They will NOT be successful.  Keep up the good work and keep getting the word out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Coloradans&#8217; Presidential Votes at Risk by Amy Oliver by mvymvy</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/83/coloradans-presidential-votes-at-risk-by-amy-oliver/comment-page-2/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>mvymvy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=83#comment-49</guid>
		<description>The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.  

Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election.  Thus, our nation&#039;s 55 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate elections.  This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation&#039;s 55 presidential elections.  The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.  

A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility.  A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections).  All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election.  The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state.  A state&#039;s ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.  

If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.  

The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee &quot;finality&quot;in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January.  These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.  

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides: 
&quot;The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.&quot;[Spelling as per original] 

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  

Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a &quot;final determination&quot;prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College.  In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their &quot;final determination&quot;six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called &quot;safe harbor&quot;date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).  

In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election.  The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.  

It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees &quot;finality&quot; prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December.  This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.  </p>
<p>Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election.  Thus, our nation&#8217;s 55 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate elections.  This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation&#8217;s 55 presidential elections.  The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.  </p>
<p>A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility.  A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections).  All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election.  The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state.  A state&#8217;s ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.  </p>
<p>If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.  </p>
<p>The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee &#8220;finality&#8221;in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January.  These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.  </p>
<p>The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:<br />
&#8220;The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.&#8221;[Spelling as per original] </p>
<p>The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.  </p>
<p>Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a &#8220;final determination&#8221;prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College.  In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their &#8220;final determination&#8221;six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called &#8220;safe harbor&#8221;date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).  </p>
<p>In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election.  The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.  </p>
<p>It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees &#8220;finality&#8221; prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December.  This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Coloradans&#8217; Presidential Votes at Risk by Amy Oliver by mvymvy</title>
		<link>http://www.loybanks.com/blog/83/coloradans-presidential-votes-at-risk-by-amy-oliver/comment-page-2/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>mvymvy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loybanks.com/blog/?p=83#comment-48</guid>
		<description>If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a &quot;big city&quot; approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn&#039;t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a &#8220;big city&#8221; approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn&#8217;t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
