NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/06/19/1095675-ap.html

Bush's criticism of Iran politics actually worked against him and he just made all-but-certain that the ultra-conservatives are going to gain more power with the election of an ultra-conserative president.

I'm at a loss of words at this point.

I almsot keeled over laughing when I read what Bush said about Iran having "an electoral process that violates the very tenants of democracy" or something to that effect. Did Bush forget how he won his first term?
He won the electoral votes but lost the popular, that sounds like an electoral process that violates the very tenants of deomcracy to me. The electoral college was great when the biggest difference between the states electoral votes was 6. Now its what 50 between the biggest and smallest states? Sounds very undemocratic in the long run with the winner take all system all but maybe 2 states have. That is millions of votes that for all points and purposes are utterly discarded.

I love Bush, he's totally gonna get us all killed one day. :D

Even better now that plane had to make an emergency landing in Iran. Way to go 2 points for diplomacy :rolleyes:

Can Bush do ONE THING RIGHT for a change???

Yes .... on January 20, 2009 he will do the one and only thing he's done right his entire political career.

to be fair he did take out effective sanctions on Burma

Yes .... on January 20, 2009 he will do the one and only thing he's done right his entire political career.
:D I laughed.

Well, we have just obviously seen a very specific failure in the statemanship, or at least in what he says to the public, of the current President of America haven't we?

Pushing people have a tendency to result in them pushing back. Particularly when you give them reason to dislike you more than they dislike their own administration.

to be fair he did take out effective sanctions on Burma

What? whats that got to do with this thread? And i doubt it was him personally who decided to do that.

What? whats that got to do with this thread? And i doubt it was him personally who decided to do that.

just mentioning something this administration have done right when it comes to foregin policy

just mentioning something this administration have done right when it comes to foregin policy
we said bush, not some one in teh administration who hasnt sold their soul to the devil

Yes .... on January 20, 2009 he will do the one and only thing he's done right his entire political career.

Thanks. You just made me sacrifice my keyboard to the RoffleGoddess in a spray of vanilla coke. I hope you're happy with yourself.

just mentioning something this administration have done right when it comes to foregin policy

Even if it was right, which is debatable, its irrelevant here. Past successes dont forgive present blunders.

but he still has 3 years to help Israel invade Iran, a war that is almost certain to go nuclear, and further fuck up the Middle East, which of course gives the next pres further justification for more imperialistic wars >.< Then Israel can further their goal of whiping out Islam and building a new biblical Isreal controling the Middle East, which they see as theirs, with biblical justification.

.,I,, >.< ,,I,.

but he still has 3 years to help Israel invade Iran, a war that is almost certain to go nuclear, and further fuck up the Middle East, which of course gives the next pres further justification for more imperialistic wars >.< Then Israel can further their goal of whiping out Islam and building a new biblical Isreal controling the Middle East, which they see as theirs, with biblical justification.

.,I,, >.< ,,I,.

Are there tickets being sold for this movie?

:p

Even if it was right, which is debatable, its irrelevant here. Past successes dont forgive present blunders.

I don't think he was saying that thet did, he was just pointing out that the current Admin has done some non-selfish things.

Still doesn't make them good guys.

I think it's illegal to say "Bush" and "Right" in one sentence!!! :D

Bush always do things right!...
Now, maybe what he needs is to try some left too...

RE: Can Bush do ONE THING RIGHT for a change???

Answer...... NO! Hes and idiot. I've met hamsters with more intelliegence than him. My 18 month old niece is more coherent than him. Im not a religious man but god help us.... please!?!? :headbang:

Just a quick note for most yanks, you know bush is a icon of ridicule here in the UK and the rest of Europe... come to think of it anywhere outside the US. Just a quickie :D

I think it's illegal to say "Bush" and "Right" in one sentence!!! :D

No saying Bush and wrong would probably be illegal. Shhhhh.

Now anyway he must have done at least one thing right. Um. He had his brother's influence kindof help him get elected through Florida.

No saying Bush and wrong would probably be illegal. Shhhhh.

Now anyway he must have done at least one thing right. Um. He had his brother's influence kindof help him get elected through Florida.

actually, he didn't win florida. gore did. he had more votes than bush and it is proven. and yes, my gerbil has more intelligence than him.

with torah justification.... The Bible would include the new testament, and everything changes when Jesus comes into the picture.

Ihatevacations']we said bush, not some one in teh administration who hasnt sold their soul to the devil

I'm sorry but who is we ?

Bush is the head of the administration therefore takes all the criticism and accepts the few compliments

I don't think he was saying that thet did, he was just pointing out that the current Admin has done some non-selfish things.

Still doesn't make them good guys.

thank you and i agree

Oh oh I know. In American Dad last night, it should a person who got Bush elected. He was some kindof demonic like thing. Bush did the right thing to get elected by hiring him.

It's refreshing to see another intelligent thread about President Bush... :rolleyes:

C'mon. When are you guys going to learn that he is really NOT a conservative?

but he still has 3 years to help Israel invade Iran, a war that is almost certain to go nuclear, and further fuck up the Middle East, which of course gives the next pres further justification for more imperialistic wars >.< Then Israel can further their goal of whiping out Islam and building a new biblical Isreal controling the Middle East, which they see as theirs, with biblical justification.

Last I checked, Sharon was withdrawing and making way for a Palestinian state. This has largely been Bush's stance since he took office. :confused:

It's refreshing to see another intelligent thread about President Bush... :rolleyes:

C'mon. When are you guys going to learn that he is really NOT a conservative?

you have got to be kidding me. he's anti-abortion, anti-stem cells, pro-war, pro-religion. in his speeches, he refers to god and soforth.

It's refreshing to see another intelligent thread about President Bush... :rolleyes:

C'mon. When are you guys going to learn that he is really NOT a conservative?

Yeah, he's just piggy backing on the conservative following of the Repubs.

Seems more and more of them are turning against his policies now. I can only guess how this will turn out in the year until his term ends.

I think he is like Piggy from the Lord of the Flies.

Annoying
Thinks they are intelligent
Need to be taken care of
Do no (good) work

I think he is like Piggy from the Lord of the Flies.

Annoying
Thinks they are intelligent
Need to be taken care of
Do no (good) work

lol. yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Capitalist Vikings
It's refreshing to see another intelligent thread about President Bush...

C'mon. When are you guys going to learn that he is really NOT a conservative?



Yeah, he's just piggy backing on the conservative following of the Repubs.

Seems more and more of them are turning against his policies now. I can only guess how this will turn out in the year until his term ends.:

It seems like he is just following Clinton's spending policies in the same way that Clinton followed GH Bush's Iraq policies.

you have got to be kidding me. he's anti-abortion, anti-stem cells, pro-war, pro-religion. in his speeches, he refers to god and soforth.

That's more of a 'neo-con' agenda.

Conservatives, in the traditional sense, tend to hate the meddling that the government has been doing lately (ex - Terri Schivo). Conservatives are for smaller government that stays out of people's lives. The opposite is occurring under the current adminstration.

Make a note that the Reagan family is pro stem cell.

That's more of a 'neo-con' agenda.

Conservatives, in the traditional sense, tend to hate the meddling that the government has been doing lately (ex - Terri Schivo). Conservatives are for smaller government that stays out of people's lives. The opposite is occurring under the current adminstration.

Make a note that the Reagan family is pro stem cell.

swartzennegger did sign that big stem cell bill. i tip my hat for him. ;)

you have got to be kidding me. he's anti-abortion, anti-stem cells, pro-war, pro-religion. in his speeches, he refers to god and soforth.

You obviously don't know much about conservatism. Let me let you in on a little secret. True conservatives are SMALL government, and there is definitely nothing small about the current U.S. government (it is both invasive on the domestic scale, but also in foreign policy). I mean look at the spending being done! How is Bush "conserving" anything? True conservatism ended after the isolationist era several decades ago. Conservatives pro-war? Not historically, only recently with Iraq. Previous to that almost all wars were started by liberal interventionists.

Lots of liberals refer to God in their speeches, and some even oppose stem-cell research, abortion, or gay marriage.

Yeah, he's just piggy backing on the conservative following of the Repubs.

Indeed. Even worse though. He's turning the Republican party into a big-government, interventionist, heavy spending, fundamentalists. I want my party back!

It seems like he is just following Clinton's spending policies in the same way that Clinton followed GH Bush's Iraq policies.

At least Clinton was able to create a surplus. :D

swartzennegger did sign that big stem cell bill. i tip my hat for him. ;)

Still, the federal funding would be a wise investment. Still a long road to go.

Ihatevacations']I almsot keeled over laughing when I read what Bush said about Iran having "an electoral process that violates the very tenants of democracy" or something to that effect. Did Bush forget how he won his first term?
He won the electoral votes but lost the popular, that sounds like an electoral process that violates the very tenants of deomcracy to me. The electoral college was great when the biggest difference between the states electoral votes was 6. Now its what 50 between the biggest and smallest states? Sounds very undemocratic in the long run with the winner take all system all but maybe 2 states have. That is millions of votes that for all points and purposes are utterly discarded.

Um... I live in Connecticut, where we have 7 Electoral Votes (used to be 8, but we've had emigration due to poor state gov't...)

ANYWAY: The Electoral College is why I bother voting. Without it, Connecticut's entire vote is moot versus Chicago. Or LA. Or even Boston (with suburbs). All getting rid of the EC would do is elevate the cities ahead of the states... :(
Worse still, since 90% of the US population live within 100 miles of a coast, there goes the whole mid-west.

Like it or not, it's really the fairest system possible... and it's only been disputed in 3 elections out of (I believe) 54. That's about a 5% "failure" rate. I wish everything worked that well! :cool:

Um... I live in Connecticut, where we have 7 Electoral Votes (used to be 8, but we've had emigration due to poor state gov't...)

ANYWAY: The Electoral College is why I bother voting. Without it, Connecticut's entire vote is moot versus Chicago. Or LA. Or even Boston (with suburbs). All getting rid of the EC would do is elevate the cities ahead of the states... :(
Worse still, since 90% of the US population live within 100 miles of a coast, there goes the whole mid-west.

Like it or not, it's really the fairest system possible... and it's only been disputed in 3 elections out of (I believe) 54. That's about a 5% "failure" rate. I wish everything worked that well! :cool:

California, New York, Texas have the most electorial votes in that order. California has 54(?), and after texas I believe the highest is 12 with a low of 2 or 3.

Popular votes should count but they dont and electorial colleges vote however they want.

Like it or not, it's really the fairest system possible... and it's only been disputed in 3 elections out of (I believe) 54. That's about a 5% "failure" rate. I wish everything worked that well! :cool:

Better than our system

Um... I live in Connecticut, where we have 7 Electoral Votes (used to be 8, but we've had emigration due to poor state gov't...)

ANYWAY: The Electoral College is why I bother voting. Without it, Connecticut's entire vote is moot versus Chicago. Or LA. Or even Boston (with suburbs). All getting rid of the EC would do is elevate the cities ahead of the states... :(
Worse still, since 90% of the US population live within 100 miles of a coast, there goes the whole mid-west.

Like it or not, it's really the fairest system possible... and it's only been disputed in 3 elections out of (I believe) 54. That's about a 5% "failure" rate. I wish everything worked that well! :cool:


Well you could have Proportional Representation, but then the ugly truth about the underbelly of the USA would get out as you'd have KKK members, nutty communists and god help us tree hugging hippies elected to positions in congress.

Um... I live in Connecticut, where we have 7 Electoral Votes (used to be 8, but we've had emigration due to poor state gov't...)

ANYWAY: The Electoral College is why I bother voting. Without it, Connecticut's entire vote is moot versus Chicago. Or LA. Or even Boston (with suburbs). All getting rid of the EC would do is elevate the cities ahead of the states... :(
Worse still, since 90% of the US population live within 100 miles of a coast, there goes the whole mid-west.

Like it or not, it's really the fairest system possible... and it's only been disputed in 3 elections out of (I believe) 54. That's about a 5% "failure" rate. I wish everything worked that well! :cool:
The electoral college removes ENTIRELY the democratic process. Your votes are thrown out if you don't vote the same way as the majority of the state, they don't count. And wow, 7 electoral votes, how does that majke your vote count any more than some one in california? It doesn't. Votes for FEDERAL government shouldn't be based on state and population, it should be based on the people. One person, on vote. Not one state, a few counted votes. How does it elevate cities above states? It doesn't no one gets anything special for voting accept they get their vote counted

the very fact you can win WITHOUT winning the msot votes more than 0% of the time means the process is unfair and undemocratic

While Bush is nowhere near my favorite Prez... he has done a couple of things right:

1) North Korea. By not caving into them (ala Clinton), they're coming around to 6 party talks again. Tihs is a tricky one.

2) Believe it or not, the economy. Even with the talent and capital lost during 9/11 (in the midst of what was already a recession), the economy recovered in 3 years. I'm not sure if he deserves the credit, but it could have been much, much worse.

3) Not signing Kyoto. It was rejected 96-0 during Clinton's term, and I'm happy this has continuted. Not because it's bad for the environment, but because it hurts nations that HAVE environmental controls (US, EU, Japan) while allowing nations that currently MAKE things (India, China) pollute freely.

Still, the federal funding would be a wise investment. Still a long road to go.

100% agreed.

California, New York, Texas have the most electorial votes in that order. California has 54(?), and after texas I believe the highest is 12 with a low of 2 or 3.

Popular votes should count but they dont and electorial colleges vote however they want.

Yep.

The absolute lowest is 3: states always have at least 2 Senators and 1 Congressman. Illinois has 21. Ohio has 20 and Florida has 27. Penn has 21.
Check out: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I agree that it should be that the delegates vote how the people in their district did. Fortunately, it's very uncommon for them to "break faith".

In all fairness to the man, Bush's Administration has some of the worst regemes in the world on its list of outposts of tyranny - Zimbabwe (home), Burma, Belaruse, North Korea, but having Cuba and Iran on the lists only strengthens their hard liners, not to mention all the really nasty people that Uncle Sam does business with - Uzbekistan, that former Soviet Republic where the leader renamed a month of the year after his mother, Egypt, (some would argue) Isreal etc, etc. Suppose that is politics... By the way if you compare the Republicans to the first and arguable the most diffinitavly conservative party, the British Conservative Party (Tory sg/Tories pl) they couldn't be less conservative if they tried. I suppose it has something to do with America's refusal to use the English language properly... not that I have much room to talk.

Well you could have Proportional Representation, but then the ugly truth about the underbelly of the USA would get out as you'd have KKK members, nutty communists and god help us tree hugging hippies elected to positions in congress.

That's what the EC is... proportion representation.

Or do you mean X% meat eaters or some such thing?

"
2) Believe it or not, the economy. Even with the talent and capital lost during 9/11 (in the midst of what was already a recession), the economy recovered in 3 years. I'm not sure if he deserves the credit, but it could have been much, much worse.
"

He did this through war. Hardly a success.

And to Viking Capitalists:

thank you thank you THANK YOU!

He is dead on, people.

And to the guy who pointed out Torah v. Bible, thanks for the distinction.

Sharon went from war monger to peace maker pretty quick, didn't he? I hope he's sinser, but it seems more likey that he's just hoping that after he removes the illigal settlements, that suicide bombings will persist (which they will), so he can use that as justification to occupy the whole damn country again, and maby this time get rid of the Palestinians for good.

Calm down. Just think of all the things Dubya hasn't screwed up....yet

Ihatevacations']The electoral college removes ENTIRELY the democratic process. Your votes are thrown out if you don't vote the same way as the majority of the state, they don't count.

That's why they call it "majority rule".

Ihatevacations']And wow, 7 electoral votes, how does that majke your vote count any more than some one in california?

By that logic, why was Ohio a battleground?
Of course it doesn't count more. But at least we're equal to 12% of Califonia. That's better than being equal to half of LA.

Ihatevacations']It doesn't. Votes for FEDERAL government shouldn't be based on state and population, it should be based on the people.

...So. Let's disenfranchise everyone who lives in rural areas or small cities? :(

Ihatevacations']One person, on vote. Not one state, a few counted votes. How does it elevate cities above states? It doesn't no one gets anything special for voting accept they get their vote counted

Er... when most of the nation live in cities near the coasts, yes it does. You think it's bad now... I could win the Presidency by campaigning in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston and LA. DONE. At least under the current system, places like Ohio *do* matter. Remember, this is the United STATES.

Ihatevacations']the very fact you can win WITHOUT winning the msot votes more than 0% of the time means the process is unfair and undemocratic

It means it takes into account smaller populations.

"
2) Believe it or not, the economy. Even with the talent and capital lost during 9/11 (in the midst of what was already a recession), the economy recovered in 3 years. I'm not sure if he deserves the credit, but it could have been much, much worse.
"

He did this through war. Hardly a success.


Eh? Why does that make it any more or less of a success? Gas prices ROSE due to Iraq... and it's not like the war effected housing starts or the balance of trade. The economy is more diverse than that. It's not like WW2 or even Viet Nam where the feds pumped a ton of cash into the economy to build materials of war.

Just think of what he has left to screw up...

Breathing for example.

Just think of what he has left to screw up...

Breathing for example.

Didn't he do that with the pretzel? :D

Yes, it is. The number of new billionsire has gone up, but the enemployment rate has also gone up. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer.

And the war brought major profit to many many industies and businesses. Boosts the GDP.

I don't count economiv success that thousands of people had to die for a success at all. You may think differently, this is how I think.

Indeed. Even worse though. He's turning the Republican party into a big-government, interventionist, heavy spending, fundamentalists. I want my party back!
Sounds a lot like FDR, to me. ;)

Yes, it is. The number of new billionsire has gone up, but the enemployment rate has also gone up.
I'm assuming you meant unemployment.

In that case, last I checked, the unemployment rate is the same under Bush as it was under Clinton...yet Clinton is praised for his "low unemployment rates".

*snickers*

By that logic, why was Ohio a battleground?
Of course it doesn't count more. But at least we're equal to 12% of Califonia. That's better than being equal to half of LA.
Equality is a misnomer, you arn't equal to anything. Cities and states are only special under teh electoral college. Under popular vote, your vote counts as YOUR VOTE, your vote doesnt count as the states vote, it counts as your vote.The electoral collage enforces and encourages the hardcore party line crap. ohio was a battelground because 50 other states ONLY vote a certain way despite whether or not people in tthat state vote a different way. Popular vote encourages third parties and the breakdown of the hardcore party line crap. You wouldn't be equal to half of LA, your votes would count exactly the same instead of "12%" as much



...So. Let's disenfranchise everyone who lives in rural areas or small cities? :(

As opposesd to disenfranchising half of america?


Er... when most of the nation live in cities near the coasts, yes it does. You think it's bad now... I could win the Presidency by campaigning in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston and LA. DONE. At least under the current system, places like Ohio *do* matter. Remember, this is the United STATES.
Oh so they would only campaign in 4 places instead of... 4 places. They only campaign otuside 4 states for looks, only 4 of them matter, usually 3. If they only campaign in 3 cities, people in other parts of the country can get mad and vote the other way, 4 or 5 cities do not have the majority of the population of the untied states, and jsut campaigning there doesn't mean everyoen will vote for them



It means it takes into account smaller populations.
bullshit, it takes into account the fact everyone lived hudnreds of miles apart and information traveleed slowly 200 years ago

Sounds a lot like FDR, to me.

Yeah. The only major difference is that at least Bush doesn't implement socialist economic policies. Although, I don't like how he supports corporate welfare and government subsidies for industry and such. Which brings me to my next point...

And the war brought major profit to many many industies and businesses. Boosts the GDP.

Not really. A more accurate statement would be the GDP is inflated. That's what happens during a war, or when the government gets its filthy hands in buisness. We need some free-market policies desperately.

Not really. A more accurate statement would be the GDP is inflated. That's what happens during a war, or when the government gets its filthy hands in buisness. We need some free-market policies desperately.
With the exception of the billions of dollars made by Halliburton, Carlyle, Raytheon and other war/"rebuilding" companies. War = Economic Gain. How else do you think we got out of the depression? And what happens when gov't gets its "filthy hands" out of business? 14 hour work days/7 days a week, parts of people being found in meat cans, no minimum wage, no equal employment opportunity, monopolies running away out of control, graft corruption and unrestrained greed.

And what happens when gov't gets its "filthy hands" out of business? 14 hour work days/7 days a week, parts of people being found in meat cans, no minimum wage, no equal employment opportunity, monopolies running away out of control, graft corruption and unrestrained greed.
Exactly...and it's called Corporatism.

Thanks to FDR and the New Deal, Corporatism has stomed out Capitalism and the free market.

Ihatevacations']Equality is a misnomer, you arn't equal to anything. Cities and states are only special under teh electoral college. Under popular vote, your vote counts as YOUR VOTE, your vote doesnt count as the states vote, it counts as your vote.

Um... New England, if it votes as a block, is 37 votes. That's more than Texas. Equality is in the eye of the beholder. :)

Great! Except that the CANDIDATES come from somewhere. They have issues, and they want to get elected. If I was a candidate under direct representation like you purport, I'd have a solely URBAN campaign, and let everywhere that doesn't have an NFL francise go rot. Nevada? Connecticut? Arkansas? Who cares?!? They're nobodies.
This is why direct representation only works in localized contests.

Ihatevacations']The electoral collage enforces and encourages the hardcore party line crap.

True. But direct representation does the same thing.

Ihatevacations']ohio was a battelground because 50 other states ONLY vote a certain way despite whether or not people in tthat state vote a different way.

Please re-write this, it doesn't make much sense to me.

However: Yet Florida was the battleground in 2000, and there was no battleground for the previous 4 elections. Heck, in 1984, 49 states voted for Reagan! The will of the people is still the will of the people.

Ihatevacations']Popular vote encourages third parties and the breakdown of the hardcore party line crap. You wouldn't be equal to half of LA, your votes would count exactly the same instead of "12%" as much

Maybe. The reason why 3rd parties don't make it in US politics is because they aren't sustainable. Perot & Anderson (as the most recent examples) bear this out: third parties need CAUSE and PERSONALITY. That's why the Libertarians don't do well nationally, either.

Ihatevacations']As opposesd to disenfranchising half of america?

:confused: Huh? Are you insinuating that the half that lost get a "shadow" President? If you're referring to Florida in 2000, the thing was too close to call, IMHO. Under Bush's method of recounting, Gore won, and vice versa. All that showed me was that we need a standard voting practice in all states.

Ihatevacations']Oh so they would only campaign in 4 places instead of... 4 places. They only campaign otuside 4 states for looks, only 4 of them matter, usually 3. If they only campaign in 3 cities, people in other parts of the country can get mad and vote the other way, 4 or 5 cities do not have the majority of the population of the untied states, and jsut campaigning there doesn't mean everyoen will vote for them

The candidates still campaigned across the nation, both hitting somewhere in the 40s for the number of states visited. Obviously they put in more time in Florida than Ohio. But they put in less time into California & New York (as Kerry pretty much had them won), which would be #2 and #1 in ALL elections under direct rep.

Ihatevacations']bullshit, it takes into account the fact everyone lived hudnreds of miles apart and information traveleed slowly 200 years ago

The speed of information is moot: the whole point was that small population states are at a disadvantage versus large ones.
One of the very CENTRAL tenets of the system was that every state would get at LEAST 3 votes: two senators + 1 Congressman. That skews the average a bit away from the larger states and allows more of a voice.

Exactly...and it's called Corporatism.

Thanks to FDR and the New Deal, Corporatism has stomed out Capitalism and the free market.
Except now we're not finding people in our meat cans thanks to the PFDA, we won't have another Depression thanks to the SEC, our bank deposits are insured up to $100,000 thanks to the FDIC. I didn't read your thread on Corporation != Capitalism, but since you rest your case so heavily on it, can you please summarize why you say that? I'd like to know.

Lots of liberals refer to God in their speeches, and some even oppose stem-cell research, abortion, or gay marriage.

Then the Liberals are cocking up as well, Liberals are for freedom of the individual, at least In Britain they are. Honestly, American politics is so damned... Crap.

I'd love to see all the shit Bush has been doing wrong going to the common person, just the reply he tries to say to justify his actions will probobly make everyone just die in laughter.

But really, America = Doomed unless you get some left-government in to straighten things out (No, Democrats arn't Left-wing). But, y'know... with all the propaganda and terror Bush seems to be inspiring, it'd be hard for any leftist government to ever achieve anything.

Do you have ninjas in Yank-land?

And what happens when gov't gets its "filthy hands" out of business? 14 hour work days/7 days a week, parts of people being found in meat cans, no minimum wage, no equal employment opportunity, monopolies running away out of control, graft corruption and unrestrained greed.

What I meant was the government should stop subsidizing the economy. It inflates everything. Obviously there should still be regulation to ensure competition and ethical standards. Most free-market capitalist would agree, anti-monopoly, trust, pooling laws and minimum wage and safety standards should be implemented. But that's all. You shouldn't have taken my statement so literally. ;)

Exactly...and it's called Corporatism.

Corporatism occurs because the government subsidizes industry and allows corporate welfare to happen. In a true free-market society, capitalism would return and corporatism would be a thing of the past.

But really, America = Doomed unless you get some left-government in to straighten things out (No, Democrats arn't Left-wing).

Riight. A Socialist economic policy would solve all our problems...

European markets are suffering more than the U.S. governments, and I wonder why? A Socialist government will never be an economic powerhouse, because expansion is inhibited.

Honestly, American politics is so damned... Crap.

Quite the opposite. I find our political parties to be way more efficient. We have two major parties, with several third parties, while you guys in the U.K. have WAY more political parties. It's hard to keep them all straight.

However: Yet Florida was the battleground in 2000, and there was no battleground for the previous 4 elections. Heck, in 1984, 49 states voted for Reagan! The will of the people is still the will of the people.





America now has changed just a lil bit since the 80s, if you look at some reasons why people voted Bush is generally because of the terror he's inspired with the terrorist problems.
In my eyes, he's trying to be the next Hitler.
He is using a scape goat (terroism, The Jews for Hitler) to blame the bad things happening, He's trying to get an 'Enabling Act' bill through for him to be President until the end of his life (requires a 2/3rds majority), the daft Terrorist law, whereby you gain no civil rights if you are found to be a terrorist (no trial etc)...

Hell I don't even know half of the things going on over there, however if you were to look up the laws being passed or getting looked at, whatever... You'd notice the lack of social reform which is what I believe America needs.

Riight. A Socialist economic policy would solve all our problems...

European markets are suffering more than the U.S. governments, and I wonder why? A Socialist government will never be an economic powerhouse, because expansion is inhibited.

It would sort out the balancing problems of corporation and wasted money on government spendings. The people are in the know of next to nothing because of propaganda, I doubt most of them know what their taxes even go in to.
There would also be the loophole that the rich don't pay as much as the poor, something near 23% of their income goes to taxation? Stupid if you ask me.



Quite the opposite. I find our political parties to be way more efficient. We have two major parties, with several third parties, while you guys in the U.K. have WAY more political parties. It's hard to keep them all straight.

We have 3 major ones, Labour, Conservative and Liberal, and even then the Liberals hardly get any attention. Either way, the UK does actually deal with social welfare while still keeping Capitalism in view, however, why Blair backs Bush on war is beyond me in how he is supposed to stand politically.

Um... New England, if it votes as a block, is 37 votes. That's more than Texas. Equality is in the eye of the beholder. :)

Great! Except that the CANDIDATES come from somewhere. They have issues, and they want to get elected. If I was a candidate under direct representation like you purport, I'd have a solely URBAN campaign, and let everywhere that doesn't have an NFL francise go rot. Nevada? Connecticut? Arkansas? Who cares?!? They're nobodies.
This is why direct representation only works in localized contests. [/quyote]
When was the last time a political candidate visited Alabama? Mississippi?
And wow, more than ONE state. Its not more than california And IF it votes as a block. You are confusing yourself and others. Candidates ONLY go to states where they have a chance of getting vot4es because it isn't locked down. Even a democrat would only go to california once or twice out of good will, its already locked down, why go there? Withotu teh electoral college, its exactly the same, he can go there or not, but this time, votes of third parties or swing voters count because if he doesn't go and make them happy, wow, he jsut lsot votes THAT MATTER. And when was the last time ANYONE at ALL made a trip to a RURAL city, never mind political candidate. It is ALWAYS an URBAN campaign, they only go to BGI cities.


[quote]
True. But direct representation does the same thing.
Wrong, popular voting supports third parties and prevents the guarantee of 50 states to a particular voting line.



Please re-write this, it doesn't make much sense to me.

However: Yet Florida was the battleground in 2000, and there was no battleground for the previous 4 elections. Heck, in 1984, 49 states voted for Reagan! The will of the people is still the will of the people.
How many states out of 50 don't ONLY vote democrat or don't ONLY vote republican, or havn't for the last 10-20 years? Maybe 6 or 8? Wow, jsut over 10% of the united states is locked down one way or another. Why campaign there or worry about it? You get guaranteed votes or no votes from those states. If you are arguing popular vote is bad because they only would go to certain areas you have NEVER followed an election.



Maybe. The reason why 3rd parties don't make it in US politics is because they aren't sustainable. Perot & Anderson (as the most recent examples) bear this out: third parties need CAUSE and PERSONALITY. That's why the Libertarians don't do well nationally, either.
Even if they had cause and personality they would be shutdown by the fact if the majority of a state doesn't vote for them, they get NO electoral votes and have no chance at winning. Granted 20,000 votes isn't much, its alot more than 0 electoral votes. How many of those 20k were in one state? Not enoguh to get the states electoral votes, especially with the winner take all system in 99% of the states.





The speed of information is moot: the whole point was that small population states are at a disadvantage versus large ones.
One of the very CENTRAL tenets of the system was that every state would get at LEAST 3 votes: two senators + 1 Congressman. That skews the average a bit away from the larger states and allows more of a voice.
Wrong

i have all but given up trying to figure out bush

if florida had just thrown out its tainted votes in 2000, we wouldn't be here right now

now this thing with bolton, hes just going to make the UN that much more subservient to the US

Ihatevacations']
Wrong

usully most people say why ;)

There would also be the loophole that the rich don't pay as much as the poor, something near 23% of their income goes to taxation?

Why should the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes? Did you know about 4/5 of all millionaires in the U.S. earned their money rather than inherited it? And in the process of attaining that wealth those 4/5 provided jobs and therefore raised the standard of living for lower income class people. Say what you want about the rich, but the truth of the matter is, most of them lead the way to an overall increase in wealth in a society.

If I had my way, income tax would be abolished and there would be a national sales tax, a small government and little spending. But it doesn't look like that dream can come to fruition any time soon....

now this thing with bolton, hes just going to make the UN that much more subservient to the US

The UN is a joke. It is more corrupt than any single government on Earth. It is entirely non-representative to the people of Earth.

It has presided over, and indirectly or directly approved of more massacres of more people since its inception than Mao, Stalin, or Hitler.

Any change would be an improvement.

To most people in the Third World, the words "Blue Helmet" and "United Nations" means "Ethnic Cleansing Now In Force" and "Genocide Has Now Started".

Oh oh I know. In American Dad last night, it should a person who got Bush elected. He was some kindof demonic like thing. Bush did the right thing to get elected by hiring him.

His name is Karl Rove. Truly he must have access to demonic powers because there is no way that Bush would have got elected without him. He has the IQ equal to a bucket of dirt. Clearly not someone who people would trust during a disaster like oh I dunno, 9/11. If people want to know what a person he truly is you have to observe him during a decision in which he doesn't get any advice or consultation. Like when he was reading to school children and told that the country was under ATTACK and he just sat there for almost TEN MINUTES not doing ANYTHING.

Honestly I don't understand people in the U.S. re-elected him :headbang: They saw what he did in response to 9/11. Two wars that were supposed to kill terrorists and eliminate the threat of them. But in truth you cannot directly fight terrorists like this and be successful in the long run. All these wars will do is anger people in the Middle East and give more recruits to terrorist organization which will then use the anger over the invasion to attack the U.S. again. How about winning the hearts and minds of the people through something than other bombing them into the stoneage.

He also slipped through the Patriotic Act during a time when emotion was high and he could almost pass any bill as long as it claimed to stop terrorists. He was bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East while restricting freedoms at home. Completly hypocritical.

Why should the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes? Did you know about 4/5 of all millionaires in the U.S. earned their money rather than inherited it? And in the process of attaining that wealth those 4/5 provided jobs and therefore raised the standard of living for lower income class people. Say what you want about the rich, but the truth of the matter is, most of them lead the way to an overall increase in wealth in a society.

If I had my way, income tax would be abolished and there would be a national sales tax, a small government and little spending. But it doesn't look like that dream can come to fruition any time soon....

Why should the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes? Did you know about 4/5 of all millionaires in the U.S. earned their money rather than inherited it? And in the process of attaining that wealth those 4/5 provided jobs and therefore raised the standard of living for lower income class people. Say what you want about the rich, but the truth of the matter is, most of them lead the way to an overall increase in wealth in a society.

If I had my way, income tax would be abolished and there would be a national sales tax, a small government and little spending. But it doesn't look like that dream can come to fruition any time soon....

I believe everyone should pay a certain percent of their with deductions on economic security and the likes.

But what about the next generation? It would go down to perhaps 3/5 of all millionaires that earned their money, then lower as time goes on.
But really, if you have so much money, why needlessly spend it on fruitless things when there are some that can't support themselves?
Yes, in Capitalism there is ways of building up from nothing however with some corporations making people 'redundant' by replacing them with lower-wage workers (this has nothing to do with race/gender), it could defeat all spirit to get back up there.
Taxation should be used to benefit everyone, not hinder certain classes and benefit others specifically... In this case, poor and rich.

But it's nice to see a genuine Conservative, not many of those about these days.

America now has changed just a lil bit since the 80s, if you look at some reasons why people voted Bush is generally because of the terror he's inspired with the terrorist problems.
In my eyes, he's trying to be the next Hitler.
He is using a scape goat (terroism, The Jews for Hitler) to blame the bad things happening, He's trying to get an 'Enabling Act' bill through for him to be President until the end of his life (requires a 2/3rds majority), the daft Terrorist law, whereby you gain no civil rights if you are found to be a terrorist (no trial etc)...

Hell I don't even know half of the things going on over there, however if you were to look up the laws being passed or getting looked at, whatever... You'd notice the lack of social reform which is what I believe America needs.

Turn off the pundits/tv. There's no way the 22nd Amendment will be overturned, and in case you've never been to NYC, there really is a great big hole where 3000+ people used to be.

I'm not a Bush fan, but he isn't the worst thing ever, either. I chalk that up to Carter. (The first President I remember is Ford... he's in second.)

Oh, give Dubya time. There's lots he has yet to screw up.


Economic left/right: -4.50
Social libertarian/authoritarian: -6.77

But what about the next generation? It would go down to perhaps 3/5 of all millionaires that earned their money, then lower as time goes on.

You're forgetting one thing. There will always be new up-and-coming millionaries, but that's besides the point. The problem I see with overtaxing the rich is that it can cause economic damage in the long run. Think of it this way. Capitalism runs in waves, the economy is sometimes up, sometimes down, however it steadily goes higher and higher. The rich are the crest of the wave, but underneath them, everyone else is riding the wave to more prosperity as well. Essentially it's the "trickle-down effect". However, we pretty much have to agree to disagree because we have a fundamental difference in opinion regarding economics.

Yes, in Capitalism there is ways of building up from nothing however with some corporations making people 'redundant' by replacing them with lower-wage workers (this has nothing to do with race/gender), it could defeat all spirit to get back up there.

Those lower-wage workers you allude to will have a better standard of living as a result. I don't see how this is a problem.

But it's nice to see a genuine Conservative, not many of those about these days.

Believe me, I wish there were more true Conservatives too. :)

Ihatevacations']

When was the last time a political candidate visited Alabama? Mississippi?
And wow, more than ONE state.

Alabama: Kerry - April 30, 2003
http://www.polstate.com/archives/002534.html#002534
Bush - 07-18-2002
http://www.jaxnews.com/stclair/2002/dh-stclairnews-0718-cnorwood-2g18o0141.htm
...the First Lady also visited twice.

Mississippi: Bush - November 02, 2003
http://www.kstepanian.com/2003/11/bush-and-barbour.html

Er... that's the point. Majority rule. If you really do advocate win by population, then you must admit that it makes SENSE that the populations of two areas that are roughly equal cancel each other out. QED.

Ihatevacations']Its not more than california And IF it votes as a block.

Fine, toss in New Jersey, then. Or New York. And that's the whole point: California has a population of like 30 million. Guess what the population of New England is?

Ihatevacations']You are confusing yourself and others. Candidates ONLY go to states where they have a chance of getting vot4es because it isn't locked down.

Which is why there's never been a surprise, eh? Like Dewey defeating Truman? :rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']Even a democrat would only go to california once or twice out of good will, its already locked down, why go there?

And indeed, why go to LA if that's locked down? It's the same thing. All you're advocating (I say it yet again) is a shift from states to cities, to the great detriment of those that live in rural areas and small population states.

Ihatevacations']Withotu teh electoral college, its exactly the same, he can go there or not, but this time, votes of third parties or swing voters count because if he doesn't go and make them happy, wow, he jsut lsot votes THAT MATTER. And when was the last time ANYONE at ALL made a trip to a RURAL city, never mind political candidate. It is ALWAYS an URBAN campaign, they only go to BGI cities.

Use a spell checker. This is painful to read.

Ihatevacations']Wrong, popular voting supports third parties and prevents the guarantee of 50 states to a particular voting line.

Riiiiight. England has over a dozen parties. Yet the minor ones stay minor. Hmm. Might be because they get so few votes, and are therefore STILL discounted by the majority of the voting public.

Ihatevacations']How many states out of 50 don't ONLY vote democrat or don't ONLY vote republican, or havn't for the last 10-20 years? Maybe 6 or 8?

Come up with some better research. If you take *any* four elections from 1952 forward (50 states), you'll find that MOST states are not static. Even Alabama went Democrat twice since 1960.

Ihatevacations']Wow, jsut over 10% of the united states is locked down one way or another. Why campaign there or worry about it? You get guaranteed votes or no votes from those states. If you are arguing popular vote is bad because they only would go to certain areas you have NEVER followed an election.

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

Ihatevacations']Even if they had cause and personality they would be shutdown by the fact if the majority of a state doesn't vote for them, they get NO electoral votes and have no chance at winning. Granted 20,000 votes isn't much, its alot more than 0 electoral votes. How many of those 20k were in one state? Not enoguh to get the states electoral votes, especially with the winner take all system in 99% of the states.

100%. The "breakaway" EC votes in New Hampshire have in fact never done so, nor have (I believe) have the one(s) in Kansas.

Ihatevacations']Wrong

Now *that's* really convincing.

The speed of information is moot: the whole point was that small population states are at a disadvantage versus large ones.
One of the very CENTRAL tenets of the system was that every state would get at LEAST 3 votes: two senators + 1 Congressman. That skews the average a bit away from the larger states and allows more of a voice.

...now then. If you think this is wrong, then I suggest you take a refresher in Civics. This is how the EC works.

usully most people say why ;)
I was in a hurry, had to go

And indeed, why go to LA if that's locked down? It's the same thing. All you're advocating (I say it yet again) is a shift from states to cities, to the great detriment of those that live in rural areas and small population states.
No, you are obsessed with cities, I am talkngi about individuals, you are the only one ranknig people in certain areas worth more than others


[Might be because they get so few votes, and are therefore STILL discounted by the majority of the voting public.
Way to avoid the point

You entirely miss my point. The electoral college is NOT to protect smaller states vs larger states, not solely. It was to make up for the lack of access to polling locations and lack of information about candidates to make an intelligent decision due to the large distance and time gap between areas of the time. That is now moot and the electoral college only serves cement party lines and keep down third parties. With the electoral college, great, every state has at least 3 votes. So what? California has over 50, You have 3 votes, ASSUMING YOU VOTE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE STATE, versus 50. If you don't vote with the majority of the state your vote is dicarded in the grand scheme. They can report number of votes a person receives, but that is just a ploy. How many of those votes counted once the electoral college process is factored in? Much fewer

I think the EC should cast it's ballot in proportion of the voting in that state.

Say, a state has 9 EC votes. That state voted 52% in favor of the republicans. 5 EC votes should vote republican and 4 should vote democrat. Minnessota did something similar this election IIRC.

I think the EC should cast it's ballot in proportion of the voting in that state.

Say, a state has 9 EC votes. That state voted 52% in favor of the republicans. 5 EC votes should vote republican and 4 should vote democrat. Minnessota did something similar this election IIRC.
Like I said, at most 4 states don't have a winner take all system

The reason I don't like Bush is because I don't believe he has the best intrest of the people he's supposed to serve at heart, I think he only acts out of personal gain, or helping out his network of rich supporters.

"This is quite the crowd, the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

-G.W. Bush, at a fundraiser event with a whole bunch of rich folk

Also, he has hundreds of thousands of deaths on his hands, all out of greed.

Once you get to killing, especially in such large numbers, that's when I get to hatin'

But that's just how I see it, I have radically different outlook on the US gov then most of you, most likely.

"This is quite the crowd, the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

Right out of that Michael Moore "documentary". You know what? Moore could care less about the truth...he just wants to eat your brain with a side of fries.

Also, he has hundreds of thousands of s on his hands, all out of greed.

Explain.

A quote is a quote

Right out of that Michael Moore "documentary". You know what? Moore could care less about the truth...he just wants to eat your brain with a side of fries.

That's why there was video? Are you saying he got a dubya look-a-like and staged that scene and somehow, the same quotes appeared in other sources before the documentary. And you're right, he could care less about the truth. Unless you meant to say he couldn't care less, in which case that would be totally false.

weather you respect MM or not, which I really have no opinion on, the fact is Bush said that.

I believe that the invasion of Iraq was for selfish reasons, I believe that Bush's administration is giving money and guns to repressive, murdurous dictators, I believe that people like Bush and the policies of the global elite (nations and people) are the reason things like the 9/11 attacks happen, and that the global south is massively exploited by these people.

You asked me to explane, I did, this is just what I believe, you need not agree, I really don't feel like getting into a discussion on this topic right now, maby another time.

and by the way, I include people like Bin Laden in "global elite," at least he was before he had to go into hiding, and he is a leader who sends others to die for his own gain, which I concider Bush and many other world leaders.

Many terrorist leaders and funders are quite wealthy, which makes me classify them in the same vein as people like Bush.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/06/19/1095675-ap.html

Bush's criticism of Iran politics actually worked against him and he just made all-but-certain that the ultra-conservatives are going to gain more power with the election of an ultra-conserative president.

I'm at a loss of words at this point.

Oh yeah because we all know Iran is going to have honest elections. :rolleyes:

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I'm certainly not a fan of Michael Moore either. My point is that Moore takes everything out of context, snipping quotes here and there, rather than portraying the entire picture. I don't deny Bush's speech happened. I would just like to see the rest of the speech for full understanding.

I was not for the Iraq war either, since I'm mostly isolationist when it comes to foreign policy.

I guess I am just extremely irritated by innacurate or "selective" reporting, not only in the "documentaries" by MM, but on the news, in the media, etc. Whether it is done to bolster the right wing or left wing stances, I just want the whole truth.

Ihatevacations']If you don't vote with the majority of the state your vote is dicarded in the grand scheme.

Hey, that's exactly why I didn't vote in the last election. If you lived in Georgia, you knew your electoral votes were going to Bush.

Hey, that's exactly why I didn't vote in the last election. If you lived in Georgia, you knew your electoral votes were going to Bush.
exactly, same with alabama, and people got mad at me for eating instead of starving while waiting all day in line to cast a pointless ballot

I guess I am just extremely irritated by innacurate or "selective" reporting, not only in the "documentaries" by MM, but on the news, in the media, etc. Whether it is done to bolster the right wing or left wing stances, I just want the whole truth.

here here, I'll drink to that.

Oh yeah because we all know Iran is going to have honest elections. :rolleyes:

Haven't heard a word on electoral fraud yet about the last Iranian election.

The ultra cons seem to have won because voters hated to be voting for anything Bush was supporting.

The irony! THE IRONY!!!

here here, I'll drink to that.
I guess I'll have to agree with you agreeing with Capitalist Vikings.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/06/19/1095675-ap.html

Bush's criticism of Iran politics actually worked against him and he just made all-but-certain that the ultra-conservatives are going to gain more power with the election of an ultra-conserative president.

I'm at a loss of words at this point.

The funny thing is, the Iranian government endorsed Bush for president in the last election.

Would u guys give it a fucking break. We all know you think bush sucks i agree with you on some pionts but these endless threads about are annoying. He's done some stupid things he's done some things i think are the right thing to do but that doesnt change the fact that hes in office for another 3 and 1/2 years. So id like to respectfully ask everyone to please STFU!!! This topic has been beaten to death then revived then beaten to death again MANY MANY times over i just dont want to hear about it anymore!

Would u guys give it a fucking break. We all know you think bush sucks i agree with you on some pionts but these endless threads about are annoying. He's done some stupid things he's done some things i think are the right thing to do but that doesnt change the fact that hes in office for another 3 and 1/2 years. So id like to respectfully ask everyone to please STFU!!! This topic has been beaten to death then revived then beaten to death again MANY MANY times over i just dont want to hear about it anymore!
I agree (for the most part). You guys tried to make a change and it didn't work. Try harder in 2008. Until then, you're complaining is doing nothing but irritating people.

Isn't it weird to think that in 2000, Bush was the moderate on the ballot and Cheney was placed to balance the ticket? Bush got less popular votes than Gore and all. In 2004, Bush was obviously very conservative, but he won popular and electoral. That's odd.....

Why should the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes? Did you know about 4/5 of all millionaires in the U.S. earned their money rather than inherited it? And in the process of attaining that wealth those 4/5 provided jobs and therefore raised the standard of living for lower income class people. Say what you want about the rich, but the truth of the matter is, most of them lead the way to an overall increase in wealth in a society.

If I had my way, income tax would be abolished and there would be a national sales tax, a small government and little spending. But it doesn't look like that dream can come to fruition any time soon....


It really depends on wha your definition of earned is. Do you honestly think that a quarter or even a half of those who have made a lot of money in the Entertainment industry really earned it? Meanwhile people with real jobs that are fairly important, like teachers, get paid very little.

Also lets have a little look-see at why having higher taxes on the wealthy works(the figures aren't realities but are rhetorical in nature to prove my point:

Say that your everyday person makes 20,000$ a year. Now say there is a tax rate of 20%. That leaves them with 16,000$ a year to spend on living and let us assume that this amount is enough money to live with some degree of comfort.

Say someone else makes 40,000$ a year. If they pay the same tax rate they have 32,000$ a year to spend on living which is far more than needed. Now lets say we push up their tax rate to, say 30%. Now they have 28,000$ a year which is still a good deal more than average joe over there.

Now lets say someone has a 80,000$ a year salary. With a 20% tax rate they have 64,000$ to spend on living. With a 30% they have 56,000$ to spend. And if we push it up even further to say 40% then they have 48,000$ a year which is a far greater amount than average joe.

Isn't math fun?

It really depends on wha your definition of earned is. Do you honestly think that a quarter or even a half of those who have made a lot of money in the Entertainment industry really earned it? Meanwhile people with real jobs that are fairly important, like teachers, get paid very little.

Also lets have a little look-see at why having higher taxes on the wealthy works(the figures aren't realities but are rhetorical in nature to prove my point:

Say that your everyday person makes 20,000$ a year. Now say there is a tax rate of 20%. That leaves them with 16,000$ a year to spend on living and let us assume that this amount is enough money to live with some degree of comfort.

Say someone else makes 40,000$ a year. If they pay the same tax rate they have 32,000$ a year to spend on living which is far more than needed. Now lets say we push up their tax rate to, say 30%. Now they have 28,000$ a year which is still a good deal more than average joe over there.

Now lets say someone has a 80,000$ a year salary. With a 20% tax rate they have 64,000$ to spend on living. With a 30% they have 56,000$ to spend. And if we push it up even further to say 40% then they have 48,000$ a year which is a far greater amount than average joe.

Isn't math fun?


So people should be punished for being successful?

It really depends on wha your definition of earned is. Do you honestly think that a quarter or even a half of those who have made a lot of money in the Entertainment industry really earned it? Meanwhile people with real jobs that are fairly important, like teachers, get paid very little.

Also lets have a little look-see at why having higher taxes on the wealthy works(the figures aren't realities but are rhetorical in nature to prove my point:

Say that your everyday person makes 20,000$ a year. Now say there is a tax rate of 20%. That leaves them with 16,000$ a year to spend on living and let us assume that this amount is enough money to live with some degree of comfort.

Say someone else makes 40,000$ a year. If they pay the same tax rate they have 32,000$ a year to spend on living which is far more than needed. Now lets say we push up their tax rate to, say 30%. Now they have 28,000$ a year which is still a good deal more than average joe over there.

Now lets say someone has a 80,000$ a year salary. With a 20% tax rate they have 64,000$ to spend on living. With a 30% they have 56,000$ to spend. And if we push it up even further to say 40% then they have 48,000$ a year which is a far greater amount than average joe.

Isn't math fun?
You have given us a good view point on this issue. A lot of the reason why the progressive tax is established (beside the face that the government gets more money from it) is to give retribution, in a way, to the poor for the flat sales tax. If a poor person only makes $200 a week and they have to spend $100 on groceries, that only leaves $100 to do whatever else on. If you add a 10% sales tax to that, it's an extra $10 that they don't have However, a corporate head makes $2000 a week and only buys $110 in groceries, he still has plenty. The progressive tax helps balance this indifference while also winning votes for the politician who supports it.

So people should be punished for being successful?

Punished no? What I'm saying is that they can afford to give more and still maintan a larger amount of financing. Further successful is not necessarilly a good way to judge those who are rich. They might earn more money a year but that doesn't mean they are really productive now does it? Whereas the middle-class are productive but get payed less money?

Well...he back-downed from reforming Social[ist] Security, refuses to acknowledge our dire problem with illegal Mexicans, and seems to have a thing for the general inflation of our government's size. Other than that, he's doing....okay, I guess.

The Capitalist Vikings, I think I love you (in a manly, normal, internet way. ;) ).

Unsupported bashing just makes you guys and the rest of the left looks like idiots.

Unsupported bashing just makes you guys and the rest of the left looks like idiots.

The same could be said of unsupported chest thumping and defence you realize?

Oh, and marvelous use of the broad generalization brush.

Could I then say that the conservatives are actually all neo-conservative super fundamentalists who wish to conquer the world by fire and sword? (or guns and bombs in this era)

Yes, but am I doing that? If you don't have something good to say, then don't say it at all. Anything else just makes you look like an idiot.

I'm not saying the left is stupid. I'm saying that all of the unsupported bashing in this thread is making the left look stupid.

Yes, but am I doing that? If you don't have something good to say, then don't say it at all. Anything else just makes you look like an idiot.

I'm not saying the left is stupid. I'm saying that all of the unsupported bashing in this thread is making the left look stupid.

I do hope that I am not the only one who sees the really blatant irony in this statement. Particularly when combined with your statements of "anything else makes you look like an idiot"

And you contradict yourself too. The moment you cast a negative remark on any side, regardless of reasoning, you have condemned yourself, by your own words, that you are an idiot.

I'm saying that unsupported political bashing such as "BUSH SUCKZ!!11!!" is only making you guys look like idiots. Are you arguing that it's actually intelligent?

I'm saying that unsupported political bashing such as "BUSH SUCKZ!!11!!" is only making you guys look like idiots. Are you arguing that it's actually intelligent?

Ah, but now you have added two extra modifications to your original statement. That in itself ensures that the first and the second statement are no longer the same, much like how a motorbike is not a car despite having the same principles of propulsion (Internal combustion). My statements would have been moot and unposted had you mentioned it in the first place.

As for unsupported political bashing on such grounds, I will simply state that it lacks a cohesive reasoning that others can see, much less proof of the veracity of the statement. Sadly however, I have seen such cases on both sides of the fence and am being forced to the conclusion that there is an equal distribution of unsupported bashing in both camps.

Forget what I said in my other posts, what I was trying to say was exactly what I said in my third post. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I agree that there is bashing on both sides, but in this instance it's mostly just anti-Bush.

wow, i just read that whole thread, all 8 pages and im buggered and confused. im not american and i dont know much about the american government. all i know is that our prime minister will only believe what Dubya tells him. Australia is being modelled on all the bits of America that I (and apparently most people writing on this thread) dont agree with. MM, in my opinion is brilliant, he is convincing. If he isnt showing the whole truth then where is the proof of that. i havent seen any kind of reply to his documentaries that changes my opinion of them. There was a massive uproar against Supersize me, and he was just trying to follow in MMs footsteps.. where was the rebuttle to bowling for columbine and F9/11? if it really wasnt true there would have been some sort of convincing response like there was to the maccas thing.. it could be possible that MM is right. maybe, just maybe. and if he's not right, hes certainly managed to leave me with a sick feeling in my gut everytime i hear 'shiny happy people' by REM..
:fluffle: There appears to be no emoticon for arse licking but if there was that would be the best representation of John Howard (little guy with glasses, last seen running Australia with his eyes closed and his tongue up bushs arse) and Dubya. its depressing that so much of australia cant see this. WHY DO YOU KEEP RE-ELECTING HIM!!!? surely even Latham wud have been better! So, not only does Bush never get anything right, but Howard prefers the monkey see monkey do method. :mad:

MM, in my opinion is brilliant, he is convincing.

I'm so sorry.

If he isnt showing the whole truth then where is the proof of that.

"Don't look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find."


Don't l i havent seen any kind of reply to his documentaries that changes my opinion of them.

Perhaps that is because your opinion of him cannot be changed?

where was the rebuttle to bowling for columbine and F9/11?

http://www.moorelies.com
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man -- by Jason Cooke and David Hardy.
Celsius 41.14
Farenhype 9/11

Need I list more?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/06/19/1095675-ap.html

Bush's criticism of Iran politics actually worked against him and he just made all-but-certain that the ultra-conservatives are going to gain more power with the election of an ultra-conserative president.

I'm at a loss of words at this point.
I hate Bush too and think he's a liar over the downing memo. But that article is bullshit. Anyone who knows shit about Iran knows that they have the Muslim religious authorities on the Guardian Council which decides who can and can't run. And they never let anyone, but Conservative, fundamentalist Muslims win. There's a lot of support for Liberal Muslims in Iran, but the Guardian Council fixes their elections, basically, by only allowing certain people to run for Presidency.

Of course it doesn't count more. But at least we're equal to 12% of Califonia. That's better than being equal to half of LA.
Better for you, worse for Californians. In a true democracy you really would be equal to half of LA. But in reality your vote has more weight and more importance than the votes of others.

Apparently you recognize this, but happen to feel that sacrificing democracy in this manner is justified. I'm sure a lot of Californians would disagree with you though.


I'd like to suggest an equitable solution. Instead of a particular state giving all of its votes to the party that had a state-wide majority, split the votes up so they actually represent the views of the state's population. If 49.5% of Ohians vote for Kerry and 50.5% vote for Bush, dice up the electoral votes so you don't cheat half of your voting population out of their votes. Sound fair?

I'd like to suggest an equitable solution. Instead of a particular state giving all of its votes to the party that had a state-wide majority, split the votes up so they actually represent the views of the state's population. If 49.5% of Ohians vote for Kerry and 50.5% vote for Bush, dice up the electoral votes so you don't cheat half of your voting population out of their votes. Sound fair?

Not a bad idea. Don't some states already do that? I remember seeing certain regions of a state vote one way, and others voting another.

What would be the harm in having an election determined by popular vote though?

What would be the harm in having an election determined by popular vote though?

To do that would mean abolishing the electoral college, which would piss a lot of people off. Popular vote doesn't have any sort of official role so the petition would get unnecessary resistance from constitutionalists and the like. In the end it probably wouldn't pass.

But if instead there was electoral reform in each state, and if it were done by referendums, I'm sure a lot of states would ratify it. After all it's theoretically up to the state electorates to decide how they'll vote. And it's no fun going to the polls and feeling like you haven't been represented at all. Whichever political group was gipped out of representation in the last election would lobby their local government heavily for fairness in the next one. The only holdouts would be states with a 2% minority.

I'm so sorry.



"Don't look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find."



Perhaps that is because your opinion of him cannot be changed?



http://www.moorelies.com
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man -- by Jason Cooke and David Hardy.
Celsius 41.14
Farenhype 9/11

Need I list more?

ahh.. i seee.. valid points you raise. the book "MMIABFSWM" i have, just havent been able to start reading yet, on account of having to read other books for school... the others i have no knowledge of. i mean to say, MMs work is right out in your face, everyone knows about it because of the way he presented it. movies, everyone loves movies. my opinion quite possibly could be changed, if ppl try hard enough. many ppl today are more likely to watch a film than read. so obviously, MMs films are going to be seen but the websites and books anti-MM wont, or at least, are less obvious. but yeah, i see your point of many rebuttles now, but do you see my point that i had never noticed them? how convincing is that?
im not that stubborn, i can change my opinion, but like most people, i havent been given a reason to like the american government

Better for you, worse for Californians. In a true democracy you really would be equal to half of LA. But in reality your vote has more weight and more importance than the votes of others.

Apparently you recognize this, but happen to feel that sacrificing democracy in this manner is justified. I'm sure a lot of Californians would disagree with you though.

It's not "sacrificing", it's a compromise AS OLD AS THE NATION, which gives small states a more equal voice.

I'd like to suggest an equitable solution. Instead of a particular state giving all of its votes to the party that had a state-wide majority, split the votes up so they actually represent the views of the state's population. If 49.5% of Ohians vote for Kerry and 50.5% vote for Bush, dice up the electoral votes so you don't cheat half of your voting population out of their votes. Sound fair?

It's not a bad idea. My only problem with it is that it sacrifices the will of the people... it's no longer "majority rules". :D

Seriously: that'd be a major undertaking until the US has the same voting apparatus in every county. There are currently no less than 9 different ways to cast ballots (depending on where you are... only NY and CT use the mechanical machines exclusively, for example). Counting/recounting would be a bear. It would take longer than the 2000 recount to figure out who's the President.

I hate Bush too and think he's a liar over the downing memo. But that article is bullshit. Anyone who knows shit about Iran knows that they have the Muslim religious authorities on the Guardian Council which decides who can and can't run. And they never let anyone, but Conservative, fundamentalist Muslims win. There's a lot of support for Liberal Muslims in Iran, but the Guardian Council fixes their elections, basically, by only allowing certain people to run for Presidency.
His ill timed statement made sure that the only reformist accepted by the Guardian Council didn't make it to the second round. He created a knee-jerk reaction in the voters that gives Iran with the choice between a conservative and an ultra-conservative.

So, yeah, Bush's comment were ill-timed to say the least. Even if they were the truth.