NationStates Jolt Archive


Are 51% of Americans stupid?

Insainania
24-03-2006, 15:38
Its a truth universally acknowledged, by just about every country and its inhabitants, that Georgie Bush isn't exactly the sharpest sandwich in the shed (deliberate merging of sayings).

Does this therefore mean that the majority of American voters who allowed him into office, are in fact AS STUPID, or worse, as ol' G.W.B.?

I realise that voter apathy and general discrimination no doubt reduced the total number of voters who participated in the last two elections, and obviously not EVERYONE voted. However if working by some crazy method of voting called democracy, whereby the guy with the most votes wins (not the most money), one can assume that to win a vote you must have AT LEAST 51% of the share of votes in order to assure victory.

Consequently George Bush recieved therefore at least 51% of the votes, and going with the principle of one man one vote, then in theory 51% of the voters voted for him! Simple no?

However considering that George W. is, lets face it, one more pretzel attack short of qualifying for a special parking spot outside Wal Mart, any rational person (read non-American or non-G.W.B. voter) would surely not allow such a man to inhabit the highest and most important position in world politics - second of course only to Dick Cheney. You wouldn't consider giving him access to a nuclear arsenal, near unlimited military funds or a whopping great big economy to run. Put like this it would seem foolhardy, almost dangerous to allow this man to have such omnipotence.

By considering that 51% of people voted an idiot into office, does that by association make them idiots as well? Are 51% of the American voting public stupid?

Sorry for the convoluted method of delivery, but hey how can you talk about Geroge without getting confusificated?
Hata-alla
24-03-2006, 15:40
I personally believe 100% of Americans are stupid. Actually, 100% of all people are. Me too. Prove me wrong with all the stupid stuff people do all the time.
BogMarsh
24-03-2006, 15:42
You forget the possibility of people having even LESS confidence in the alternatives.

I'm a proud former KH4K, and hardly a friend of Shrub, yet I can see that difficulties in choosing between voting for either a lying retarded son-of-a-Barbara on one hand and a spineless flipflopper on the other hand are by no means an indication of stupidity.
Fascist Emirates
24-03-2006, 15:44
As a rule I could consider anything anyone says as being 'stupid'
Thusly I envoke this right to personaly associate the creator of this post as being inherantly 'stupid'.

Either that or ignorant, as is usually the case.
Kryozerkia
24-03-2006, 15:47
I personally believe 100% of Americans are stupid. Actually, 100% of all people are. Me too. Prove me wrong with all the stupid stuff people do all the time.
Now you're being just silly... it's much more reasonable to say 99.9% and allow for that 0.01% margin of error.
Keruvalia
24-03-2006, 15:49
By considering that 51% of people voted an idiot into office, does that by association make them idiots as well? Are 51% of the American voting public stupid?

Not really.

The truly stupid are the 80,379,793* people who were eligible to vote in 2004, but didn't.

* - http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm
The Half-Hidden
24-03-2006, 15:49
What an idiotic suggestion. People don't vote stupidity, they vote policies. They liked his policies. Some stupid people vote personalities, and they were attracted by Bush's acting skills. That is, acting ineloquent, acting stupid, etc.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 15:49
More than 51% voted him into office. And most of us are still happy with him.
If we cared so much about all the other countries opinions about us, or our leaders, we wouldnt be as well off as we are now. We might be settling for being like all those other opinionated places.
Consider this- the people that support the President arent out shrieking in the streets like his detractors. Even if they were, the press wouldnt give them half as much attention.
Most Americans arent stupid. Maybe only the ones that are so afraid of what the rest of the world thinks.
Anglo-Utopia
24-03-2006, 15:59
A lot of people voted for him because he's a "devoted christian" :rolleyes: Not all of them, but some of them. They are the stupid ones.
Dakini
24-03-2006, 16:01
More than 51% voted him into office. And most of us are still happy with him.
Uh... wasn't his approval rating around 30% now?
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 16:07
More than 51% voted him into office. And most of us are still happy with him.
Wow, those must be some strong meds you're taking - can I have some?
BogMarsh
24-03-2006, 16:11
I think he might mean that most of the 51% who voted for him are still ok with their choice.

The mathematical possibility exists.
60% of 51% would work out like some 30% of American voters still being happy.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 16:15
Uh... wasn't his approval rating around 30% now?


Amongst whom? Who do they ask if they approve? How do they ask?

Are you under the impression there are direct questions? People are under the assumption this is close to being accurate.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 16:16
Wow, those must be some strong meds you're taking - can I have some?

I'm sure they'd have an adverse effect to whatever you're already on.
Zylonom
24-03-2006, 16:19
I'm not from america, but personaly I think the election was rigged. I have no proff or reason to beleive this, but it helps me sleep at night. Actually I had insommina since he was in power... only W.... pass me those meds.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 16:19
...Consequently George Bush recieved therefore at least 51% of the votes, and going with the principle of one man one vote, then in theory 51% of the voters voted for him! Simple no?


not so simple. Unfortunately... in the US, it isn't one man one vote, otherwise Al Gore would have been president Bush's first time. And i believe more people would vote. Me being in Texas, even though i did vote for Kerry, all my electoral votes went to Bush.

We have something here called the electoral college (which is gay imo, but is neither here nor there)
Fascist Emirates
24-03-2006, 16:20
I'm sure they'd have an adverse effect to whatever you're already on.

Real mature.
Drunk commies deleted
24-03-2006, 16:25
Duh, us Americans not stupid. Us am very smart peepl. American invented all kind of great stuffs. Like MTV, buffalo wing, writen langwage, and other real complicated thing.


Actually no, Americans aren't any dumber than others, just more apathetic and bombarded by more advertising, including political ads that fog the issues.
Drunk commies deleted
24-03-2006, 16:27
<snip>

We have something here called the electoral college (which is gay imo, but is neither here nor there)
I'm not sure that the electors are disproportionately gay.
Golgan
24-03-2006, 16:30
Oh, to be sure, the US is FULL of idiots. Well...mostly just ignorant, misled unfortunates, but that's pretty close to idiocy. But the REAL morons are the people who won't let the electoral college DIE.
Fascist Emirates
24-03-2006, 16:34
Oh, to be sure, the US is FULL of idiots. Well...mostly just ignorant, misled unfortunates, but that's pretty close to idiocy. But the REAL morons are the people who won't let the electoral college DIE.

The right to petition.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 16:36
I'm not sure that the electors are disproportionately gay.

how else do you think Bush got them to vote for him? Bush is a 'andsome devil 'e is.
The Half-Hidden
24-03-2006, 16:38
If we cared so much about all the other countries opinions about us, or our leaders, we wouldnt be as well off as we are now. We might be settling for being like all those other opinionated places.
You mean Europe? We're pretty well off over here.
Drunk commies deleted
24-03-2006, 16:39
how else do you think Bush got them to vote for him? Bush is a 'andsome devil 'e is.
Good point. By opposing gay marriage he's become the friend of every gay guy who's scared of commitment.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 16:42
i like how people say americans are stupid.

my personal opinion is that there are stupid people everywhere. not just here.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 16:47
Real mature.


Ouch. No problem with what I was responding to though, right?
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 16:47
my personal opinion is that there are stupid people everywhere. not just here.
Sure, there are stupid people everywhere. They just don't brazen it out, in extraordinarily loud voices, in public, even after they've come to realize their innate stupidity, like (at least) 51% of Americans do.
2k_rammerizkool
24-03-2006, 16:53
i'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the actual voters have no direct influence over who votes. it's the electoral college that "votes" the president into office.
BeagleBag
24-03-2006, 16:55
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif
:p

As an American who proudly voted for Bush (and will soon be the youngest person in my Master of Arts in Counseling program starting this fall), I wonder why you think those of us who voted for him are stupid. Many of us are concerned about national security, and I think Bush expressed his opinion on this issue better than Sen. Kerry. He also takes a particular stand on issues and usually doesn't change his mind.

I do not completely agree with the President, especially about border security, some aspects of his abortion policy (not what he says, but that he doesn't seem to back that up with actions), and some of the spending decisions he's made. Still, I thought he was the better choice.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 16:55
Sure, there are stupid people everywhere. They just don't brazen it out, in extraordinarily loud voices, in public, even after they've come to realize their innate stupidity, like (at least) 51% of Americans do.

Like hordes of people chanting slogans,burning flags in the streets? That seems pretty brazen.
Or folks rioting and burning cars/businesses in France? That might be considered brazen in some places.

The list of examples is endless. Many can be categorized as extraordinarily loud and brazen.

I guess it depends on whom YOU judge as stupid. (Not you personally)
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 17:01
I think the creator of this thread is stupid. He should no better than to call those who voted for the President Stupid.
Kryozerkia
24-03-2006, 17:07
I think the creator of this thread is stupid. He should no better than to call those who voted for the President Stupid.
So, you're saying that he shouldn't call the people who voted for President Stupid? He doesn't seem to be calling these people at all... :p
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 17:10
So, you're saying that he shouldn't call the people who voted for President Stupid? He doesn't seem to be calling these people at all... :p

:confused:
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 17:22
:confused:
:rolleyes: He's calling Bush stupid...

(why do I bother?)
Kryozerkia
24-03-2006, 17:23
:rolleyes: He's calling Bush stupid...

(why do I bother?)
Actually... I was twisting around WesternPA's words. He left out some key commas, so I took the ball and went the whole nine yards with it!
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 17:25
Actually... I was twisting around WesternPA's words. He left out some key commas, so I took the ball and went the whole nine yards with it!
It wasn't lost on me, Kryo. But your nine yards might as well be nine miles where these rubes and dupes are concerned...
Kryozerkia
24-03-2006, 17:27
It wasn't lost on me, Kryo. But your nine yards might as well be nine miles where these rubes and dupes are concerned...
Aw, you're too kind. :D
Kzord
24-03-2006, 17:30
I say that 95% of people (regardless of nationality) are stupid.
Good Lifes
24-03-2006, 17:31
GW was elected on emotion. Abortion and gay marriage. Plus he said he was "Christian" even though he has done nothing that shows it. Notice he has also done nothin about abortion or gay marriage. emotion, emotion, emotion
Kzord
24-03-2006, 17:32
GW was elected on emotion. Abortion and gay marriage. Plus he said he was "Christian" even though he has done nothing that shows it. Notice he has also done nothin about abortion or gay marriage. emotion, emotion, emotion

It wasn't just emotion ... studies have shown that physical appearance affects voting too.
25th Soldier Select
24-03-2006, 17:48
I'm not from america, but personaly I think the election was rigged. I have no proff or reason to beleive this, but it helps me sleep at night. Actually I had insommina since he was in power... only W.... pass me those meds.

I live in america and I too think it was rigged. 2000 election he got just over 50 million votes. An unpopular war later with a running debt larger than any other president and he gains 10 million votes...yeah, sure. I voted for him in 2000, evaluated his job performance and voted against him in the subsequent race. Know many others who did the same.

Where did those extra votes come from?

If it wasnt rigged I'm inclined to agree with the original posters assumption. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 18:04
Its a truth universally acknowledged, by just about every country and its inhabitants, that Georgie Bush isn't exactly the sharpest sandwich in the shed (deliberate merging of sayings).

Does this therefore mean that the majority of American voters who allowed him into office, are in fact AS STUPID, or worse, as ol' G.W.B.?

I realise that voter apathy and general discrimination no doubt reduced the total number of voters who participated in the last two elections, and obviously not EVERYONE voted. However if working by some crazy method of voting called democracy, whereby the guy with the most votes wins (not the most money), one can assume that to win a vote you must have AT LEAST 51% of the share of votes in order to assure victory.

Consequently George Bush recieved therefore at least 51% of the votes, and going with the principle of one man one vote, then in theory 51% of the voters voted for him! Simple no?

However considering that George W. is, lets face it, one more pretzel attack short of qualifying for a special parking spot outside Wal Mart, any rational person (read non-American or non-G.W.B. voter) would surely not allow such a man to inhabit the highest and most important position in world politics - second of course only to Dick Cheney. You wouldn't consider giving him access to a nuclear arsenal, near unlimited military funds or a whopping great big economy to run. Put like this it would seem foolhardy, almost dangerous to allow this man to have such omnipotence.

By considering that 51% of people voted an idiot into office, does that by association make them idiots as well? Are 51% of the American voting public stupid?

Sorry for the convoluted method of delivery, but hey how can you talk about Geroge without getting confusificated?
Actually, the last two elections had among the highest voter turnouts ever.

Yes, most people are stupid. Even people who did not vote for him are stupid. Unfortunately, the reality is most people in the world are not what you would call overly educated. Any economist will tell you, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Everything has a cost. Democracy has it's cost and that cost is the full participation of the population regardless of education level. What this means is that democracy is the slave of the bell curve. The input of intelligent, educated people will always be balanced by its opposite.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 18:05
Do you know who i think is stupid?






The Spainards. For being kowtowed by terrorism and voting against the current administation they had.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 18:06
I live in america and I too think it was rigged. 2000 election he got just over 50 million votes. An unpopular war later with a running debt larger than any other president and he gains 10 million votes...yeah, sure. I voted for him in 2000, evaluated his job performance and voted against him in the subsequent race. Know many others who did the same.

Where did those extra votes come from?

If it wasnt rigged I'm inclined to agree with the original posters assumption. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
the reason he picked up more votes is because of higher turnout. Kerry also got a lot more votes than Gore.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 18:08
voting against the current administation they had.
:confused: That's fuckin' confusing.
Romanar
24-03-2006, 18:10
51% of the voters thought Bush was better than the other guy. To me, that really says something about the other guy.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 18:11
:confused: That's fuckin' confusing.

people in spain had a current administration (or whatever they call their gov't). Then the Madrid bombings happened near election time, during the time the current admin wanted to be re-elected. However, due to the bombings, the people voted them out....


is that more clear?
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 18:14
9/11 helped Bush. Americans got anxious. Anxious people seek continuity.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 18:15
people in spain had a current administration (or whatever they call their gov't). Then the Madrid bombings happened near election time, during the time the current admin wanted to be re-elected. However, due to the bombings, the people voted them out....


is that more clear?
I'm aware of the history, it's the contradiction in terms that confused me. Current means "now." You can't be the "current" administration that you "had."
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 18:16
Errinundera']9/11 helped Bush. Americans got anxious. Anxious people seek continuity.
Anxious people seek toilets to throw up into. I guess that qualifies.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 18:18
I'm aware of the history, it's the contradiction in terms that confused me. Current means "now." You can't be the "current" administration that you "had."


ok mr. semantics(sp). You got my point :P
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 18:19
51% of the voters thought Bush was better than the other guy. To me, that really says something about the other guy.
To me, its says something about Americans and our susceptibility to spin and propaganda. Bush is easily the stupidest presidnet we have ever had and its plainly evident to anyone with nominal intelligence. If you think otherwise then I have serious reservations about yoru level of intelligence and education. Not only would Gore or Kerry have been better, the dude who just emptied the waste basket at my desk would've, too.
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 18:19
people in spain had a current administration (or whatever they call their gov't). Then the Madrid bombings happened near election time, during the time the current admin wanted to be re-elected. However, due to the bombings, the people voted them out....


is that more clear?

The incumbent government did lie about the perpetrators - claiming it was Basque terrorists. It seems Spanish voters saw through the lies.
Jeff Weavers Bong
24-03-2006, 18:21
I think the % of stupid Americans is much higher than that.
Xenophobialand
24-03-2006, 18:26
Its a truth universally acknowledged, by just about every country and its inhabitants, that Georgie Bush isn't exactly the sharpest sandwich in the shed (deliberate merging of sayings).

Does this therefore mean that the majority of American voters who allowed him into office, are in fact AS STUPID, or worse, as ol' G.W.B.?

I realise that voter apathy and general discrimination no doubt reduced the total number of voters who participated in the last two elections, and obviously not EVERYONE voted. However if working by some crazy method of voting called democracy, whereby the guy with the most votes wins (not the most money), one can assume that to win a vote you must have AT LEAST 51% of the share of votes in order to assure victory.

Consequently George Bush recieved therefore at least 51% of the votes, and going with the principle of one man one vote, then in theory 51% of the voters voted for him! Simple no?

However considering that George W. is, lets face it, one more pretzel attack short of qualifying for a special parking spot outside Wal Mart, any rational person (read non-American or non-G.W.B. voter) would surely not allow such a man to inhabit the highest and most important position in world politics - second of course only to Dick Cheney. You wouldn't consider giving him access to a nuclear arsenal, near unlimited military funds or a whopping great big economy to run. Put like this it would seem foolhardy, almost dangerous to allow this man to have such omnipotence.

By considering that 51% of people voted an idiot into office, does that by association make them idiots as well? Are 51% of the American voting public stupid?

Sorry for the convoluted method of delivery, but hey how can you talk about Geroge without getting confusificated?

They aren't stupid; they're terrified, and when people are terrified, they like simple, clearcut explanations of problems and solutions far more than they like intelligence.
Romanar
24-03-2006, 18:28
Not only would Gore or Kerry have been better, the dude who just emptied the waste basket at my desk would've, too.

Frankly, I think the dude who emptied your waste basket would have been better than Gore or Kerry too. By 2004, I was actually hoping the Dems would run a decent candidate. Instead, they ran Kerry.
Ashekelon
24-03-2006, 18:29
running around, bombing all these countries in the name of "anti-terrorism" and "world security"... it begs the question: "when's payday?"
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 18:32
Errinundera']The incumbent government did lie about the perpetrators - claiming it was Basque terrorists. It seems Spanish voters saw through the lies.

of course they did... isn't that the normal MO of the basque terrorists?

Did the spanish gov't not retract their statements once it was clear it wasn't?
The Alma Mater
24-03-2006, 18:32
You forget the possibility of people having even LESS confidence in the alternatives.

I'm a proud former KH4K, and hardly a friend of Shrub, yet I can see that difficulties in choosing between voting for either a lying retarded son-of-a-Barbara on one hand and a spineless flipflopper on the other hand are by no means an indication of stupidity.

IIRC there were over 50 presidential candidates. The American voters were not limited to the choice between douche and turd - they choose to be.

Therefor I fear your argument is invalid...
Romanar
24-03-2006, 18:36
IIRC there were over 50 presidential candidates. The American voters were not limited to the choice between douche and turd - they choose to be.

Therefor I fear your argument is invalid...

I voted for Badnarik. But I knew at the time that he wasn't going to win. Neither was Nader. Neither were any of the other 46 candidates.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 18:36
IIRC there were over 50 presidential candidates. The American voters were not limited to the choice between douche and turd - they choose to be.

Therefor I fear your argument is invalid...

in the end there were only two choices.
Handsome Divers
24-03-2006, 18:37
You know, the great thing about our nation is that anyone can share their opinion. The only problem with that, however, is that most of the outspoken people in this nation are morons who never learned to think for themselves. Thanks for being one of the morons.
The Alma Mater
24-03-2006, 18:39
in the end there were only two choices.

Only because the American voters decided that. There is no law that says you have to vote republican or democrat.
Mirchaz
24-03-2006, 18:44
Only because the American voters decided that. There is no law that says you have to vote republican or democrat.

of course there aren't. But most people realize if you want your vote to count in any way, you would vote for a major party.
The Alma Mater
24-03-2006, 18:51
of course there aren't. But most people realize if you want your vote to count in any way, you would vote for a major party.

Which however means that they cannot complain later that "they had to choose between two evils". If a significant portion of US citizens would say "sorry- but these two choices suck" one could easily get a third party candidate into the white house.
Szanth
24-03-2006, 19:00
Nader was good. I would've voted for him.

John Edwards was better - He should've been the one on the presidential slot. Kerry just dragged him down.
BeagleBag
24-03-2006, 19:01
To me, its says something about Americans and our susceptibility to spin and propaganda. Bush is easily the stupidest presidnet we have ever had and its plainly evident to anyone with nominal intelligence. If you think otherwise then I have serious reservations about yoru level of intelligence and education.

Oh, I bow at your superior ability to analyze not only political candidates (especially for "presidnet"), but the intelligence of millions of Americans.

Calling people who disagree with you "stupid" not only won't convince them you're right, but probably doesn't make your side look attractive to people who are undecided. At least, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have valid and intellectual reasons for thinking differently than I do. Just a thought.
:cool:
DrunkenDove
24-03-2006, 19:04
Worst OP ever.
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 19:07
Worst OP ever.
Tish and pish. I've seen far, far worse. And so have you.
Szanth
24-03-2006, 19:10
Tish and pish. I've seen far, far worse. And so have you.

I see Johnson, I see Bush, I see Nixon's... um.. nothing to do with Nixon rhymes with Bush, so... Resignation. Ha.
DrunkenDove
24-03-2006, 19:10
Tish and pish. I've seen far, far worse. And so have you.

Guilty. Although "Seventy-third worst OP ever that I know about" doesn't have the same ring.
Asbena
24-03-2006, 19:12
Think about Gore before saying that....who's better anyways?
The blessed Chris
24-03-2006, 19:13
I personally believe 100% of Americans are stupid. Actually, 100% of all people are. Me too. Prove me wrong with all the stupid stuff people do all the time.

Irrationality and stupidity are not similar.
Asbena
24-03-2006, 19:17
Irrationality and stupidity are not similar.

However true, they are both related to intelligence. Obviously America is lacking in that dept.
Alabardios
24-03-2006, 19:29
If we cared so much about all the other countries opinions about us, or our leaders, we wouldnt be as well off as we are now. We might be settling for being like all those other opinionated places.


well off? okay pay off all your debts and then see if your "well off"
and whats wrong with opions? opions are the result of the process of thought
Unified slavic nations
24-03-2006, 19:29
In order to name someone stupid we must firstly clarify what we all mean by saing this word. Surely it's easy to say something, but are words always the exact correspondence to our thoughts.


I hope that 51% of american people aren't stupid. Simply there's too much money invested in George Bush and i assume his campaign ( I have to mention that i'm not american and therefore only make assumptions) was very good and some more labile people were convinced that he's good enough. What's more everyone knows he's actually a puppet ( if he ain't one, god be merciful) and they simply vote for the political force he's representing or the economy branches he supports. Because people are dependant on money whether we like it or not and knowing that by choosing this leader he will develop the industry branch were you work will make you feel more secure for not loosing your job, for even hoping of improvement. And lets not forget about buying votes, pocibility of vote counting deceits and so on. After all who gives a damn about democracy as long as the money keeps pouring in the pockets of the ones who have biggest amounts. And in order to stay rich (=powerful) you have to invest your money so that you can win more and preserve your current status.

I personaly think a vote will be actual only if 100% of the people who have the right to vote do so.
Insainania
24-03-2006, 19:40
I must say i'm very impressed with the turnout for this particular topic; then again anything about Bush usually generates some degree of response.

I would like to quickly point out, to those who execised thier right to free speech by criticising this post and its origional content, that I merely asked - Does this make 51% of voting Americans as stupid as Bush?

I don't recall acctually saying the phrase "I think Americans are stupid", though if i'm wrong then I appologise. I posed a question, I didn't formulate an argument (which I neccessarily subscribe to - I realise I put forth one possible argument for the claim towards American stupidity, but every question must recognise that two sides exist, otherwise there would be no need for the question!) I assume I can expect an apology any time soon!

Anyway, just to follow up the odd comment which I can remember - I am aware of the electoral college and its basic premise that it in fact elects the president (though with voter assistance), consequently, can it therefore be argued that President Bush (and every preceeding President), was not in fact democratically elected?

As a democratic vote is one whereby a candidate is elected by obtaining the most votes from a secret ballot, in which every person who qualifies for the franchise has one vote (i'm sure someone can tell me the official definition), this doesn't seem to apply to America, or Britain for that matter, or a good few other countries!

I appreciate that the wording of the post is simplistic; I merely chose the word "stupid", because "plebian" seemed a tad harsh, and quite frankly, I do think Bush is stupid, by any definition of the word, (i do not however neccessarily believe all Americans to be stupid - hey you guys produced Seth McFarlane!). I never said EVERY American was stupid, I suggested that those who voted for Bush were stupid.

Also for the sake of having a bit of a nit picking exercise, someone said something about being affraid, and G.W.B. providing security for the nation. I have two points to make about this:-

1) September 11th occured during the first Bush regime - so it was his level of security that let it happen.

2) America may well now be facing severe terror threats, but they are largely of their own making, and while Bush may have promised security, I fail to believe that any candidate's campaign message was "We'll get rid of the metal detectors at the airport!" - No one in their right mind would reduce the security levels, so voting for Bush simply for this point was a bit misguided.

Also those who mentioned voting for Bush because of his christian "leanings", i'd just say that its nice to see Church and State being seperated for once, yay for secularism!

I'm not going to have a go at everyone's opinions for voting, because it'd be a never ending argument - you can't change people's minds, you can only show them that not everyone thinks they're right.

I'm just glad I don't have to vote for your president (I'm a Brit., yeah I know Tony's a doormat), but just because I don't live in America, doesn't mean I can't criticise the government - if that were the case, then who would American's have to blame?

"Yes I Know My Enemy They're the Teachers Who Taught Me to Fight Me!"
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 19:43
Oh, I bow at your superior ability to analyze not only political candidates (especially for "presidnet"), but the intelligence of millions of Americans.

Calling people who disagree with you "stupid" not only won't convince them you're right, but probably doesn't make your side look attractive to people who are undecided. At least, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you have valid and intellectual reasons for thinking differently than I do. Just a thought.
:cool:
I was specifically referring to anyone who thinks Bush is a particularily intelligent person. He is not. Being able to recognize intelligence, or the lack thereof, in other people is indicative of one's own intelligence, politcal policies aside.
BogMarsh
24-03-2006, 19:43
IIRC there were over 50 presidential candidates. The American voters were not limited to the choice between douche and turd - they choose to be.

Therefor I fear your argument is invalid...


Since none of the other 48 candidates ran any real danger of picking up as much as one electoral vote, voting for one of those 48 does not constitute making a choice, but merely a statement.

A bit like voting Monster Raving Looney in the UK.

So in the end, it was still the choice between the Long Face and the Lying Retard. 'Bout 98% of all Americans had no trouble coming to THAT particular conclusion.
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 19:51
I'm a wannabe socialist and greenie and I'm not American. I loathe Shrub's policies, however....

I don't believe he is stupid. Inarticulate for sure. But he's a clever political operator.
Asbena
24-03-2006, 19:54
Since none of the other 48 candidates ran any real danger of picking up as much as one electoral vote, voting for one of those 48 does not constitute making a choice, but merely a statement.

A bit like voting Monster Raving Looney in the UK.

So in the end, it was still the choice between the Long Face and the Lying Retard. 'Bout 98% of all Americans had no trouble coming to THAT particular conclusion.

Soooo true.
The Alma Mater
24-03-2006, 19:57
Since none of the other 48 candidates ran any real danger of picking up as much as one electoral vote, voting for one of those 48 does not constitute making a choice, but merely a statement.

A bit like voting Monster Raving Looney in the UK.

So in the end, it was still the choice between the Long Face and the Lying Retard. 'Bout 98% of all Americans had no trouble coming to THAT particular conclusion.

Which basicly means 98% of all Americans in fact IS stupid...
Saddening :(
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 19:58
Errinundera']I'm a wannabe socialist and greenie and I'm not American. I loathe Shrub's policies, however....

I don't believe he is stupid. Inarticulate for sure. But he's a clever political operator.
No he's not. Karl Rove is.
BogMarsh
24-03-2006, 20:01
Which basicly means 98% of all Americans in fact IS stupid...
Saddening :(

So, in essence, you are saying my estimate of the situation is correct?
Thank you :D

The Universe is as it is - not as you want it to be.
TJHairball
24-03-2006, 20:04
Which basicly means 98% of all Americans in fact IS stupid...
Saddening :(No, about 98% of Americans understood and accepted the structural inevitabilities of the system. It is a rare third party candidate which is able to run; by supporting them in loss, a pure single-vote plurality system dictates you actually hurt the political cause of whichever of the two (once in a long time, three) "viable" candidates seems closest.

And that's not going to end until the US gets rid of the system that first uses a small minority of voters to select which candidates will get all the funding and media attention, then uses single-vote plurality in what are essentially 50 separate winner-takes-all elections on a point system. The system is structured in a manner that supports a two party system and excludes third parties.

Glad to see this thread has stayed civil. Keep up the good work.
Asbena
24-03-2006, 20:06
So, in essence, you are saying my estimate of the situation is correct?
Thank you :D

The Universe is as it is - not as you want it to be.

Soooo...? Why can't we change it? Impeach him!
Aiur-
24-03-2006, 20:09
Actually only 26% of the US population is stupid because only 50% of the population actually votes. So it was really 26% vs. 24% and about 50% abstained. The US' voter turnout is really shitty.
BogMarsh
24-03-2006, 20:10
Soooo...? Why can't we change it? Impeach him!


Because the Equilibrium ( of unpleasant alternatives ) has not changed in any fundamental way.

Let me put it like this:
what percentage of Americans would be pleased to have GW Bush replaced by Dick Cheney?
For that is EXACTLY what the outcome of a succesful impeachment process would be.

Btw: Chin up! The Union has survived 6 years of Bush, somehow. The final 2 years is just the home stretch.
Nano IV
24-03-2006, 20:11
I believe that it is not the americans that are stupid but the un suitable food and water containing high levels of chlorine lead and mercury. Everyone in america is mis diagnosing mercury poisoning as other symptoms for other dieseses. Therefore pumping themselves with medication that they dont really need, fucking up theyre heads. END
Frangland
24-03-2006, 20:15
Its a truth universally acknowledged, by just about every country and its inhabitants, that Georgie Bush isn't exactly the sharpest sandwich in the shed (deliberate merging of sayings).

Does this therefore mean that the majority of American voters who allowed him into office, are in fact AS STUPID, or worse, as ol' G.W.B.?

I realise that voter apathy and general discrimination no doubt reduced the total number of voters who participated in the last two elections, and obviously not EVERYONE voted. However if working by some crazy method of voting called democracy, whereby the guy with the most votes wins (not the most money), one can assume that to win a vote you must have AT LEAST 51% of the share of votes in order to assure victory.

Consequently George Bush recieved therefore at least 51% of the votes, and going with the principle of one man one vote, then in theory 51% of the voters voted for him! Simple no?

However considering that George W. is, lets face it, one more pretzel attack short of qualifying for a special parking spot outside Wal Mart, any rational person (read non-American or non-G.W.B. voter) would surely not allow such a man to inhabit the highest and most important position in world politics - second of course only to Dick Cheney. You wouldn't consider giving him access to a nuclear arsenal, near unlimited military funds or a whopping great big economy to run. Put like this it would seem foolhardy, almost dangerous to allow this man to have such omnipotence.

By considering that 51% of people voted an idiot into office, does that by association make them idiots as well? Are 51% of the American voting public stupid?

Sorry for the convoluted method of delivery, but hey how can you talk about Geroge without getting confusificated?

nice flame!

President Bush got better college marks than Kerry did...

Did he do anything to you to make you such a hater?

I know that freeing oppressed people rubs some the wrong way... but what exactly did he do to you?
Frangland
24-03-2006, 20:19
...and BTW...

average IQ scores for American Republicans and Democrats are more or less equal (i've seen no study showing otherwise).

Most college grads voted for Bush

Most PhDs voted for Kerry

Most MBAs voted for Bush (obvious reasons)

Most lawyers voted for Kerry

Most people who make more than $60K per year voted for Bush

Most poor people voted for Kerry

...generally what happens when you have a candidate from a party that favors free enterprise, whose opponent is from a party that favors more redistribution of wealth/welfare.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 20:25
The funnniest stat is those who voted who felt that intelligence was the most important factor in a leader. Only 7% felt it was the most important, but those who did voted thusly:

Intelligent (7%)

9% Bush

91% Kerry

This was probably not due to Kerry's reputation as an intellectual giant as much as Bush's reputation as an intellectual midget.
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 20:28
After no small amount of consideration, and time spent in the fruitless gun-nut thread, it is my considered opinion that

YOU'RE ALL STUPID. UNBELIEVABLY SO. EACH AND EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU. AND THE SOONER YOU ALL KILL EACH OTHER WITH "HOME SECURITY" DEVICES (that's "inanimate objects" for you dupes in the gun-nut lobby) THE BETTER OFF THE WORLD WILL BE.
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 20:28
I know that freeing oppressed people rubs some the wrong way

Exactly what oppressed people did he free?

Iraqis? They're free now? Would you like to live in that sort of freedom?
Szanth
24-03-2006, 20:29
nice flame!

President Bush got better college marks than Kerry did...

Did he do anything to you to make you such a hater?

I know that freeing oppressed people rubs some the wrong way... but what exactly did he do to you?

College marks that were probably bought off by his father. He was a party guy, he didn't have the shit for good marks.

Freeing oppressed people is fine, in fact, my nation has done that a few times. It's the -way- you do it, and -when- you choose to do it, and -what- occurs while you're in the process of doing it. Also, if things get fucked up, it's about taking responsibility for them, not covering them up, not putting the blame somewhere else. It's about not lying to people, not giving them false information to further your cause, not sending people to die for something that wasn't necessary and could've been much more elegantly executed. It's about making sure the people around you really care, and aren't greedy bastards out to line their pockets with blood and gold. It's about being moral, ethical, and truthful.

Bush hasn't done any of that right. He allows himself to be a puppet, and that is an inexcusable and unforgivable mistake on the part of a president.
Irnland
24-03-2006, 20:29
IMHO, there are a few problems with the American elections

1. A fair few people see themselves as republican/democrat, rather than voting on policies, or even personalities.

2. Church and state should be seperate. Period. Even the Bible says so. I have devout Christian friends and they say it. I know two ministers and they say it. In America, it doesnt happen.

3. Chunking up the country does not make for proportional representation - the guy with the most votes should win. (Yes, this happens in Britain too, but there are several hundred areas, and each gets its own MP, who can vote any way he likes - there have been several rebellions by large groups of Labour MPs in the last 6 months, and the threat of this keeps the government towards a sensible compromise and middle ground.)


An interesting point is that Bush took a big slump in the polls, during the hurricane incident. The first time his crisis management was put to the test, his reaction was slow and clumsy, and probably cost lives, but no one noticed bacause they were too busy with the implications of the first serious terrorist attack on US soil. The second time, he handled it almost as badly. There was no distraction this time, and it showed.

Incidently, while I of course was and am appalled by 9/11, and other similar incidents, it's worth noting that only 3000 people died. HALF A MILLION PEOPLE die of cancer each year in America alone. That's 3 9/11's every week. Imagine if the vast amounts of money spent on waging war with countries that posed almost no threat to the US or other "Coalition countries" had been poured into cancer research.

In addition, studies now show that because of the various wars Bush and Co have started, there is now MORE resentment and MORE chance of a terrorist attack than ever before!

The point is that if you punch people, they punch back - simply knocking the hell out of countries that have Islamic extremist sympathies just isn't going to work. Trust the UK on this one - we've been through it in Northern Ireland.
Distressed Nick Lau
24-03-2006, 20:34
Actually only 26% of the US population is stupid because only 50% of the population actually votes. So it was really 26% vs. 24% and about 50% abstained. The US' voter turnout is really shitty.

I'd consider the 50% of the population that didn't vote and could to be stupid for not voting in the first place!

The thing is, people voted for Bush because his personal beliefs fit with the "majority" of the country. He could be doing a horrible job, but those who agree with him on defense, taxes, or whatever just because they don't want a "gasp" Democrat in office! It's the same thing goes for Democrats, if Kerry was elected and did as bad as Bush, they'd still reelect him just for the fact that he's a Democrat. That's the problem with a two-party system, you can't even begin to please everyone, as too many people as stuck on 2 very different sides.
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 20:36
Incidently, while I of course was and am appalled by 9/11, and other similar incidents, it's worth noting that only 3000 people died. HALF A MILLION PEOPLE die of cancer each year in America alone.

Think of the Asian tsunami or the Pakistani earthquakes.

Where's the war on tsunamis or the war on earthquakes?
Distressed Nick Lau
24-03-2006, 20:38
The point is that if you punch people, they punch back - simply knocking the hell out of countries that have Islamic extremist sympathies just isn't going to work. Trust the UK on this one - we've been through it in Northern Ireland.

If anyone ever wants to know why Islamic extremists hate the US and the Western world so much (or why there's extremists in the first place), just look at our history in the Middle East. We have done nothing but disrupt and cause havoc among it since the end of WWII.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 20:40
I'd consider the 50% of the population that didn't vote and could to be stupid for not voting in the first place!

The thing is, people voted for Bush because his personal beliefs fit with the "majority" of the country. He could be doing a horrible job, but those who agree with him on defense, taxes, or whatever just because they don't want a "gasp" Democrat in office! It's the same thing goes for Democrats, if Kerry was elected and did as bad as Bush, they'd still reelect him just for the fact that he's a Democrat. That's the problem with a two-party system, you can't even begin to please everyone...
I don't blame the two party system, I blame the way politics and elections are run and financed. We have sound bite elections that are run on talking points. Bush didn't win the last election because he was more articulate or intelligent. He won because Karl Rove rightly told him to say, "Freedom is on the march," and, "The terrorsists are being defeated," over and over and over and over and over...


Mr. President, do you feel that the situation in Iraq would have been better today if teh American commitment of troops after the initial invasion were higher?

Freedom is on the march.

Mr. President, how do you feel about the cuurent situation with reagrds to posrt security in the US?

The terrorists are being defeated.

Mr. President, is it okay if a blow a load of spunk into your wife Laura's eye?

Democracy will prevail.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 20:42
Errinundera']Think of the Asian tsunami or the Pakistani earthquakes.

Where's the war on tsunamis or the war on earthquakes?
Well, you can't really fight those. Millions are being spent on trying to predict them, though.
Szanth
24-03-2006, 20:44
Errinundera']Think of the Asian tsunami or the Pakistani earthquakes.

Where's the war on tsunamis or the war on earthquakes?

Next on CNN: The War on God.
Sumamba Buwhan
24-03-2006, 20:47
Just read some thread titles about what Americans are up to and it would seem very likely
Szanth
24-03-2006, 20:48
Just read some thread titles about what Americans are up to and it would seem very likely

I'M A GOD WARRIOR![/crazybitchontradingspouses]
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 20:48
Well, you can't really fight those. Millions are being spent on trying to predict them, though.

Agreed you can't fight them but...

1. We are all under much greater threat from tsunamis and earthquakes than terrorists.
2. Vastly more money is being spent by rich countries on the war on terror than is being spent on predicting/alleviating earthquakes.
Irnland
24-03-2006, 20:49
Errinundera']Think of the Asian tsunami or the Pakistani earthquakes.

Where's the war on tsunamis or the war on earthquakes?

Exactly. The thing is, people think terrorism is something that we should be able to do something about, whereas natural disasters are "tragic accidents" and diseases like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimers are "regretable". Tomahawk cruis missiles cost $1.9 million EACH, and some 500 - 800 were used just in the opening attack on Iraq. Thats $950 million to $1520 million dollars in TWO DAYS. They called the tactic "Shock and Awe". Well, I'm certainly shocked.

It defies all reason
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 20:50
Next on CNN: The War on God.

Thanks for the laugh. If only it were possible. There'd have to BE a god first.

Mind you, lack of WMDs didn't stop another war I can think of.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 20:53
Errinundera']Agreed you can't fight them but...

1. We are all under much greater threat from tsunamis and earthquakes than terrorists.Not sure about that. One nuke... Also, we may not be able to predict when they will happen, but we are very sure where. Places at high risk need to take precautions.
2. Vastly more money is being spent by rich countries on the war on terror than is being spent on predicting/alleviating earthquakes.
Don't need to spend as much. Stopping a tsunami is impossible. Giving people an early enough warning to get away from the beach and grab hold of something is all you can really do. Earthquake, same thing. Terrorist attacks are preventable, just not by how Bush is doing it.
Pissantia
24-03-2006, 21:00
People are stupid for thinking that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the red herring of terrorism are really important.
I won't point to New Orleans as an example of what's wrong with America like so many other people do, but shit, look at New Orleans!
Although it's not the people's fault so much as the pussies of our mass media, who refuse to ask questions that really matter.
Drunk commies deleted
24-03-2006, 21:00
After no small amount of consideration, and time spent in the fruitless gun-nut thread, it is my considered opinion that

YOU'RE ALL STUPID. UNBELIEVABLY SO. EACH AND EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU. AND THE SOONER YOU ALL KILL EACH OTHER WITH "HOME SECURITY" DEVICES (that's "inanimate objects" for you dupes in the gun-nut lobby) THE BETTER OFF THE WORLD WILL BE.
Dude, calm the fuck down. You don't like guns? Guess what? You don't have to own one or live in a place that allows them. Those of us who like guns will continue to own them and everybody's happy.
Irnland
24-03-2006, 21:04
Just looked it up - 186,983 is the official death toll for the tsunami, more than 62 times the number that died on 9/11

BUT

3.7 times more people die of heart disease (696,947)

2.9 times more people die of cancer (550,000)

24 times more people have Alzheimers (4,500,000)

This is just in America - Bear in mind, if treatment was found for any/all of the above, it would help many more people worldwide.

Sorry, but disease is definitly my thing at the moment
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 21:15
This reply is for both PsychoticDan and Irnland.

The Italian government recently criticised the Australian government because the Australian federal police were putting too many resources into the war against terror and winding back the effort against organised crime.

It was pointed out that a bit over 100 Australians had been killed by terrorists in the last decade. The number of Australians who die from overdose from using imported drugs easily exceeds that every year.

It will be a very long time before terrorists can match the death rates form other sources quoted in this thread.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 21:15
Exactly. The thing is, people think terrorism is something that we should be able to do something about, whereas natural disasters are "tragic accidents" and diseases like cancer, heart disease and Alzheimers are "regretable". Tomahawk cruis missiles cost $1.9 million EACH, and some 500 - 800 were used just in the opening attack on Iraq. Thats $950 million to $1520 million dollars in TWO DAYS. They called the tactic "Shock and Awe". Well, I'm certainly shocked.

It defies all reason

I'm sure you've forgotten, but we spent a few dollars on Tsunami aid, not to mention a few boatloads of men,doctors,equipment to help those people. US Navy was first on the scene offering relief/shelter/comfort.

Maybe not as interesting as your stats, but its a fact.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 21:17
Dude, calm the fuck down. You don't like guns? Guess what? You don't have to own one or live in a place that allows them. Those of us who like guns will continue to own them and everybody's happy.

Dont pay attention to hysteria/hissy-fits.
Kecibukia
24-03-2006, 21:18
Dude, calm the fuck down. You don't like guns? Guess what? You don't have to own one or live in a place that allows them. Those of us who like guns will continue to own them and everybody's happy.

He's upset that his large, colorful font posts weren't appreciated in the KS CCW thread so now has to go around other threads trolling.
The Ka-Tarek
24-03-2006, 21:21
A little off the current topic, but oh well it relates to the initial issue.

51% of American's are not stupid, that's probably limited to about 20% (with about the same precentages for the rest of the world), or you can take the opposite and say 100% of the world is stupid and whatever. The difference is that a large part of America is ignorant and poorly educated. They believe whatever they see on the news, even if they're watching something as biased as Fox News or the Daily Show.

So now back to the original question, how did Bush win?

Against Gore it's relatively simple, more people voted for Gore, republican election officials in Florida screwed with the results (nice having a brother for a Governer, isn't it? Dead people voting and whatnot) and got the desicion for the election dragged to the supreme court (which should never have happened, violation of the balance of powers) and the supreme court justicies voted along party lines, Bush wins.

Against Kerry it's very different. Kerry was lampooned and lied about by the Swift Boat assholes (good job, questioning the patriotism of a man who lost a leg and an arm in war) and given a reputation as a flip-flopper in the media. But that's not enough, shouldn't have been, even considering teh cheating in Ohio and Florida Bush won by the smallest majority since, I'm not quite sure, one of the presidents from before the civil war.

The key difference is the organization of the parties. The Democratic pary is unorganized and scattered, people, seeing their candidate fail in the primary's, may not vote. By contrast, the republicans, even though many disagree with a lot of Bush's policies (he's a neo-con, big government control with bigger corporations, they're old style G.O.P., small government w/states rights, hell of a clash) they still vote for him because of loyalty to the party.

2/3 of the country are registered as Democrats, 1/3 of the country votes, whose the largest majority of people who DON'T vote? The Dems.

Bush also won because he scared people. After the election polls revealed that the largest majority of people who voted on such topics as education, the economy, other academic stuff, voted for Kerry. 80% of people who voted on such areas as terrorist attacks and national security voted for Bush, even if he's been doing a f*ck-up job. Bush scared the country so they voted for him, good old dictator-style terror tactics.


For the record, the cheating in Ohio was nothing so blatant as throwing out ballots, they had people stand in line to delay it, they'd close doors while there were still people in line, they simply didn't even open some polling stations (in predominatly democratic urban centers) they had election officals ask political questions (illegal) to people in lines. "They" being republican officials. ANyway all that is completely illegal, and may well have changed the election's course, but it's hard to tell.


***

On the tsunami aid, Bush's original contribution was LESS than such large and wealthy nations as Vietnam, Denmark, and other tiny countries. Only after China and some other super-nations donated large sums of money did America mvoe an Aircraft Carrier in and donate a very generous load of cash.


***

I have to agree with the gun-haters, the world would be better off without the average person having the ability to own firearms. They have no true usefullness, except for the minority of people who hunt, but there could be an exception for that. I'm not ashamed to say the second amendment is outdated.
Avika
24-03-2006, 21:30
You're better off with the evil you know than the evil you don't know.
The Ka-Tarek
24-03-2006, 21:33
Not really, you could always try getting rid of the evil.
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 21:34
You're better off with the evil you know than the evil you don't know.

Do you believe that? Or are you suggesting the American voters believe that?
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:34
Actually... I was twisting around WesternPA's words. He left out some key commas, so I took the ball and went the whole nine yards with it!

I hope you just did not call me a he.
Bobs Own Pipe
24-03-2006, 21:35
He's upset that his large, colorful font posts weren't appreciated in the KS CCW thread so now has to go around other threads trolling.
Found a way to view your porn yet?
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:36
51% of the voters thought Bush was better than the other guy. To me, that really says something about the other guy.

No truer words spoken.
Maineiacs
24-03-2006, 21:37
Actually, 51% of Americans didn't vote for Dubya. 51% of those who bothered to vote did. Less than half of all those eleigible to vote do so. That notwithstanding, yes at least 51% of everyone in this country is stupd, and I suspect that the number is more like 100% -- worldwide.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:37
To me, its says something about Americans and our susceptibility to spin and propaganda. Bush is easily the stupidest presidnet we have ever had and its plainly evident to anyone with nominal intelligence. If you think otherwise then I have serious reservations about yoru level of intelligence and education. Not only would Gore or Kerry have been better, the dude who just emptied the waste basket at my desk would've, too.

Why do people call someone stupid when they disagree on here?
Insainania
24-03-2006, 21:38
I know that freeing oppressed people rubs some the wrong way...


Yes, well congratulations on freeing the Iraqi people from the continual threat of death, torture, political domination and terror...oh wait.

It only took the US about 18 years to realise that Saddam wasn't to their liking, after having supported his ascension to the head of Iraq, then selling him weapons and providing political support during the Iran/Iraq War, which only lasted 8 years, before then allowing him to remain in power after Desert Storm (love the names - could be a game franchise!), for another 11 years - that'll teach him.

As far as freeing oppressed people are concerned, why hasn't the US invaded Iran, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, most of Africa, China, etc. etc.?

So far it would appear that the US has only 'freed' the people of nations who have oil and are willing to buy arms from them. I admit Afghanistan is an exception - wait a minute, who sold the Talaban Stinger missile launchers in the 80s? And provided CIA funded missions to help recruitment in certain areas and give training and military support to notable people, i.e. Mr. Bin Laden? Couldn't be America could it? Nah, they love all that peace and freedom malarkey.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:38
running around, bombing all these countries in the name of "anti-terrorism" and "world security"... it begs the question: "when's payday?"

You know what would happen if a nation did that to the U.S.?
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 21:39
I'm sure you've forgotten, but we spent a few dollars on Tsunami aid, not to mention a few boatloads of men,doctors,equipment to help those people.

One of the good (if the word can be applied to such a terrible event) things that came out of the tsunami was the response from other nations.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:40
Which however means that they cannot complain later that "they had to choose between two evils". If a significant portion of US citizens would say "sorry- but these two choices suck" one could easily get a third party candidate into the white house.

*curtsies*

I agree. I'm not political in anyway but even I know this.
The Ka-Tarek
24-03-2006, 21:40
No truer words spoken.

If only it were true, life would be so much simpler.

But it's not, 41% of voters were scared by the republican spin machine and told by the media that a terrorist attack was more likely if they voted for Kerry.

The other 10% that voted for Bush were either REALLY rich and benefit from his economy destroying policies or extremist Christian and like his religious policies. Which shouldn't be included at all.
Liberalton
24-03-2006, 21:42
Its a truth universally acknowledged, by just about every country and its inhabitants, that Georgie Bush isn't exactly the sharpest sandwich in the shed (deliberate merging of sayings).

Does this therefore mean that the majority of American voters who allowed him into office, are in fact AS STUPID, or worse, as ol' G.W.B.?

I realise that voter apathy and general discrimination no doubt reduced the total number of voters who participated in the last two elections, and obviously not EVERYONE voted. However if working by some crazy method of voting called democracy, whereby the guy with the most votes wins (not the most money), one can assume that to win a vote you must have AT LEAST 51% of the share of votes in order to assure victory.

Consequently George Bush recieved therefore at least 51% of the votes, and going with the principle of one man one vote, then in theory 51% of the voters voted for him! Simple no?

However considering that George W. is, lets face it, one more pretzel attack short of qualifying for a special parking spot outside Wal Mart, any rational person (read non-American or non-G.W.B. voter) would surely not allow such a man to inhabit the highest and most important position in world politics - second of course only to Dick Cheney. You wouldn't consider giving him access to a nuclear arsenal, near unlimited military funds or a whopping great big economy to run. Put like this it would seem foolhardy, almost dangerous to allow this man to have such omnipotence.

By considering that 51% of people voted an idiot into office, does that by association make them idiots as well? Are 51% of the American voting public stupid?

Sorry for the convoluted method of delivery, but hey how can you talk about Geroge without getting confusificated?


That is a VERY stupid think to say. First off not every American has the right to vote. I do not, as I am not 18 years old. Secondly Most Americans who have that right so not unilize it. Bush recieved 59,337,159 votes, that is 20.4 percent of the population. A mere fifth.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:43
I was specifically referring to anyone who thinks Bush is a particularily intelligent person. He is not. Being able to recognize intelligence, or the lack thereof, in other people is indicative of one's own intelligence, politcal policies aside.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it proven that Kerry had a worst GPA than Bush?
Irnland
24-03-2006, 21:44
Errinundera']
It will be a very long time before terrorists can match the death rates form other sources quoted in this thread.

Exactly my point. Besides, it has been 4 and a half years since 9/11, and there hasn't been anything close to that since. The biggest attack in Britain - when on July 7th a group of suicide bombers set off bombs on various points on the London Underground. Despite being astonishingly well organised (One bomb was delayed so that rerouted passangers could fill the station, and one was on a bus when they were full of subway passengers) only 56 People died. It's a miniscule number.

Maybe if we concentrate on creating peace in the middle east (by which I mean, stop invading and talk), and tolerance within our own countries, terrorism will not grow as you seem to think it will.

I'm sure you've forgotten, but we spent a few dollars on Tsunami aid, not to mention a few boatloads of men,doctors,equipment to help those people. US Navy was first on the scene offering relief/shelter/comfort.

Maybe not as interesting as your stats, but its a fact.

I have certainly not forgotton, but think of it this way - how many people started War Charities after 9/11? How many went round streets, schools businesses collecting money for invasion?

When a tragedy happens, people rush to aid those in trouble, not to attack others. Emergency services flooded in to help, many people risked their lives to help those still trapped inside - That is the reaction worth remembering, as was the flood of volunteers in charities, and the large amounts of money, food and clo0thing sent to help the victims of the tsunami.

Still, tsunamis like that are extremely rare - only 4 on the same scale in terms of death toll have been recorded in the last hundred years, and in the previo9us ones the toll was much higher because of lack of aid.

Cancer (Sorry to harp on, but it's my Disease of the Week) kills 3 times this number EVERY YEAR.

I am absolutly not knocking people who helped at 9/11, or who helped with the Tsunami. On the contrary, I salute them. My beef is specifically with the recent armed conflicts, because they increase rather than decrease the number of casualties, and waste billions that could be spent on things like medical research
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:44
Soooo...? Why can't we change it? Impeach him!

Fortunately, he's done nothing impeachable.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:45
Actually only 26% of the US population is stupid because only 50% of the population actually votes. So it was really 26% vs. 24% and about 50% abstained. The US' voter turnout is really shitty.

So why were people stupid for voting for a candidate that they wanted?
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:46
I believe that it is not the americans that are stupid but the un suitable food and water containing high levels of chlorine lead and mercury. Everyone in america is mis diagnosing mercury poisoning as other symptoms for other dieseses. Therefore pumping themselves with medication that they dont really need, fucking up theyre heads. END

I sure hope you have proof of this.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:48
The funnniest stat is those who voted who felt that intelligence was the most important factor in a leader. Only 7% felt it was the most important, but those who did voted thusly:

Intelligent (7%)

9% Bush

91% Kerry

This was probably not due to Kerry's reputation as an intellectual giant as much as Bush's reputation as an intellectual midget.

My I see proof of where you got this please?
Kecibukia
24-03-2006, 21:48
Found a way to view your porn yet?

Yes, and thank you for proving my point.
The Ka-Tarek
24-03-2006, 21:50
Grades are not a determinant of intelligence; work ethic and ability to see projects to completion are, somewhat.

By comparison, after Bush left college he started on a spree of small businesses, which after being given a loan by his parents or a friends, he succesfully drove into the ground EVERY time.

Kerry, by contrast, has a much more succesful career, and he actually fought in Vietnam rather than getting drunk in his airplane. I don't understand how Bush's war record comes off better than Kerry's, can someone fill me in?

As for doing nothing impeachable, uh, he's lied to the country multiple times and caused a war over lies, essentially causing teh deaths of 300,000 Iraqi's and 2000+ American soldiers.

They tried to impeach Clinton on giving someone a blowjob, so I think he's open for it.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:50
I'd consider the 50% of the population that didn't vote and could to be stupid for not voting in the first place!

The thing is, people voted for Bush because his personal beliefs fit with the "majority" of the country. He could be doing a horrible job, but those who agree with him on defense, taxes, or whatever just because they don't want a "gasp" Democrat in office! It's the same thing goes for Democrats, if Kerry was elected and did as bad as Bush, they'd still reelect him just for the fact that he's a Democrat. That's the problem with a two-party system, you can't even begin to please everyone, as too many people as stuck on 2 very different sides.

Agreed.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 21:52
Errinundera']This reply is for both PsychoticDan and Irnland.

The Italian government recently criticised the Australian government because the Australian federal police were putting too many resources into the war against terror and winding back the effort against organised crime.

It was pointed out that a bit over 100 Australians had been killed by terrorists in the last decade. The number of Australians who die from overdose from using imported drugs easily exceeds that every year.

It will be a very long time before terrorists can match the death rates form other sources quoted in this thread.
First, other causes of death don't destroy economies in the same way that terrorism does. Tsunamis and other natural disasters may, but they sre indefensible beyond taking precations. You cannot defeat earthquakes. Second, you may know of a disease that is threatening to set off a nuclear explosion in a major Western metropolis but as far as I know they pretty much stick to killing people through health problems. The fact is, people die. As they get older they tend to get things like heart disease and cancer, especially if they did not take care of themselves as well as they could have. The prospect of a major WMD attack in a major city is not only frightening because of the immediate implications, but because of what it does to the world economy, political stability, social tensions, etc... You think cancer kills a lot of people? Whatch how many people will die all ovet the world should a succesful attack take place against a major Saudi oil installation. What do you think will happen to all that medical research during a global depression? I happen to know a lot about this personally. My last name is Dow and yes, I am related. I'm not rich, however, because my side of the family went into pharmaceudicals instead of industrial chemicals. The depression took all of our money when the pharmeceutical industry collapsed. The effects of disease are calculated into the daily business of the planet. The effects of terrorism are not and can be every bit as bad or worse than that of a natural disaster. The difference between them is that we can fight terrorism while we cannot fight hurricanes.
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 21:52
Exactly my point. Besides, it has been 4 and a half years since 9/11, and there hasn't been anything close to that since. The biggest attack in Britain - when on July 7th a group of suicide bombers set off bombs on various points on the London Underground. Despite being astonishingly well organised (One bomb was delayed so that rerouted passangers could fill the station, and one was on a bus when they were full of subway passengers) only 56 People died. It's a miniscule number.

Maybe if we concentrate on creating peace in the middle east (by which I mean, stop invading and talk), and tolerance within our own countries, terrorism will not grow as you seem to think it will.



Yes- there has been nothing close to another 9/11 in the US since. You dont think its because the terrorists didnt want to,right? They are being hit from all sides.

How do infidels "create peace" in the middle east? Even if we went crazy and eleiminated Israel, they would still be killing each other.

Our efforts need to focus on keeping it away from our own shores. You dont truly believe those people will ever stop fighting, do you ?
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 21:53
My I see proof of where you got this please?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:56
If only it were true, life would be so much simpler.

But it's not, 41% of voters were scared by the republican spin machine and told by the media that a terrorist attack was more likely if they voted for Kerry.

The other 10% that voted for Bush were either REALLY rich and benefit from his economy destroying policies or extremist Christian and like his religious policies. Which shouldn't be included at all.

Ya know what? I really do not care why the people vote the way they do. They actually vote.
Insainania
24-03-2006, 21:58
That is a VERY stupid think to say. First off not every American has the right to vote. I do not, as I am not 18 years old. Secondly Most Americans who have that right so not unilize it. Bush recieved 59,337,159 votes, that is 20.4 percent of the population. A mere fifth.


Right, speaking of a stupid "think" to say - I didn't acctually say that every American is stupid. If you re-read my post you should be able to see the sentence where I said "I realise that voter apathy and general discrimination no doubt reduced the total number of voters who participated in the last two elections, and obviously not EVERYONE voted".

By the way, I simply asked a question, I didn't make a statement. Why should I be abused for asking?

Please try to keep up. Read and understand before you lash out! Thats how every other democracy works!
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 21:58
Grades are not a determinant of intelligence; work ethic and ability to see projects to completion are, somewhat.

By comparison, after Bush left college he started on a spree of small businesses, which after being given a loan by his parents or a friends, he succesfully drove into the ground EVERY time.

Kerry, by contrast, has a much more succesful career, and he actually fought in Vietnam rather than getting drunk in his airplane. I don't understand how Bush's war record comes off better than Kerry's, can someone fill me in?

As for doing nothing impeachable, uh, he's lied to the country multiple times and caused a war over lies, essentially causing teh deaths of 300,000 Iraqi's and 2000+ American soldiers.

They tried to impeach Clinton on giving someone a blowjob, so I think he's open for it.

Let me state it again as I did in another thread. What did Bush do to deserve impeachment? Nothing that's what.

The reasons you stated here are not impeachable offenses for if they were, then every president should've been impeached.
Quamia
24-03-2006, 22:01
51% of Americans are not stupid; they were deceived into thinking Bush is conservative, when in fact he is fascist.
Canada6
24-03-2006, 22:01
[opinion]Bush's re-election didn't come as too much of a surprise to me. Although I preferred him, John Kerry would not have been a resounding improvement and for the long run of the Democratic Party and ultimately the US and the world, I think it was best he lost. What I have difficulty in comprehending is how the American national treasure that is Gore lost to the piece of garbage that is Bush.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:02
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Lot of stats here. Is there a simplier version?
Drexel Hillsville
24-03-2006, 22:03
I am part of the other 49% for the most part. Go Nader!!!
Carnivorous Lickers
24-03-2006, 22:03
Kerry, by contrast, has a much more succesful career, and he actually fought in Vietnam rather than getting drunk in his airplane. I don't understand how Bush's war record comes off better than Kerry's, can someone fill me in?



Bush got drunk in his airplane?? Oh-no- Thats bullshit you just made up. Ok.

Clinton's problem wasnt getting a blowjob in the White House from an intern, it was the lie under oath.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:04
51% of Americans are not stupid; they were deceived into thinking Bush is conservative, when in fact he is fascist.

oh brother.
Dubya 1000
24-03-2006, 22:07
Its a truth universally acknowledged, by just about every country and its inhabitants, that Georgie Bush isn't exactly the sharpest sandwich in the shed (deliberate merging of sayings).

Does this therefore mean that the majority of American voters who allowed him into office, are in fact AS STUPID, or worse, as ol' G.W.B.?

I realise that voter apathy and general discrimination no doubt reduced the total number of voters who participated in the last two elections, and obviously not EVERYONE voted. However if working by some crazy method of voting called democracy, whereby the guy with the most votes wins (not the most money), one can assume that to win a vote you must have AT LEAST 51% of the share of votes in order to assure victory.

Consequently George Bush recieved therefore at least 51% of the votes, and going with the principle of one man one vote, then in theory 51% of the voters voted for him! Simple no?

However considering that George W. is, lets face it, one more pretzel attack short of qualifying for a special parking spot outside Wal Mart, any rational person (read non-American or non-G.W.B. voter) would surely not allow such a man to inhabit the highest and most important position in world politics - second of course only to Dick Cheney. You wouldn't consider giving him access to a nuclear arsenal, near unlimited military funds or a whopping great big economy to run. Put like this it would seem foolhardy, almost dangerous to allow this man to have such omnipotence.

By considering that 51% of people voted an idiot into office, does that by association make them idiots as well? Are 51% of the American voting public stupid?

Sorry for the convoluted method of delivery, but hey how can you talk about Geroge without getting confusificated?

yes, 51% of americans are indeed stupid. but not the ones who voted for George Bush. The ones who didn't vote are the truly foolish ones.

I believe the voter turnout here in the states was like 49% in 2004, so there.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 22:09
Lot of stats here. Is there a simplier version?
No. Just scroll down. You'll find it. You're looking for "Most Important Quality."
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:10
No. Just scroll down. You'll find it.

Don't have time right now. I have homework.
The Ka-Tarek
24-03-2006, 22:10
Let me state it again as I did in another thread. What did Bush do to deserve impeachment? Nothing that's what.

The reasons you stated here are not impeachable offenses for if they were, then every president should've been impeached.

So why was Clinton impeached?
Quamia
24-03-2006, 22:10
Let me state it again as I did in another thread. What did Bush do to deserve impeachment? Nothing that's what.

The reasons you stated here are not impeachable offenses for if they were, then every president should've been impeached.
The Constitution gives no authority to the President to put troops in a foreign country if Congress has not declared war. Wiretapping Americans is a federal crime. He has also usurped a great deal of power, breaking the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. He has also not done anything to stop (ALL) abortions, which are crimes. Federal aid to Hurricane Katrina is unConstitutional. The ports deal with Dubai was unConstitutional. US membership in the United Nations is unConstitutional, and giving American troops to the UN is not just unConstitutional, but anti-American and pro-"New World Order." George Bush's allegiance is not to America.

These are only the most impeachable offenses. I haven't mentioned his (liberal/socialist) unConstitutional social programs that are in no way authorized by the Constitution. And the plan that he says isn't amnesty... actually is amnesty, because it allows illegals to stay here. Illegal immigration needs to be recognized as being illegal.

Yes, pretty much every President we've had should have been impeached. It's just that Bush is one of the worse ones -- his fascist tendencies (wiretapping and nationalism) are astonishing.
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 22:12
The reasons you stated here are not impeachable offenses for if they were, then every president should've been impeached.

Please explain to an outsider (me) what warrants impeachment of a US president.

Thanks.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 22:12
Don't have time right now. I have homework.
Well, then I guess you'll just have to assume the oll data I gave you is correct. I provided you with a perfectly reasonable link from a qualified source and it took me all of one or two minutes to find it. Most Important Quality. there I just found it again. Took 30 seconds. Big bold type:

Most Important Quality
Imperium Americana
24-03-2006, 22:12
Not really.

The truly stupid are the 80,379,793* people who were eligible to vote in 2004, but didn't.

* - http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

There you go. Those are the stupid people. Oh, along with all the Eurofolk and whatnot that go off and call ALL Americans stupid. I mean, we North Americans are pretty dumb with all this Hollywood pop culture garbage and all, but you can't call EVERYONE stupid. I'd say somewhere around 75% of Americans, voters or not, are stupid. Not like the rest of the world is much smarter really.... Not like I am.... :sniper:
The UN abassadorship
24-03-2006, 22:13
I dont know, how many Americans are liberal?
Insainania
24-03-2006, 22:15
There you go. Those are the stupid people. Oh, along with all the Eurofolk and whatnot that go off and call ALL Americans stupid. I mean, we North Americans are pretty dumb with all this Hollywood pop culture garbage and all, but you can't call EVERYONE stupid. I'd say somewhere around 75% of Americans, voters or not, are stupid. Not like the rest of the world is much smarter really.... Not like I am....

So in theory then, I was being quite generous with my estimations that only 51% were stupid? Do you agree?
Irnland
24-03-2006, 22:16
How do infidels "create peace" in the middle east? Even if we went crazy and eleiminated Israel, they would still be killing each other.

Okay - Palestines kill Israelies because we took over administrations of the region, filled the country with Israelies, and when both sides couldn't get along, said "Okay, we'll give half of the country to them." The Israelies proceded to bulldoze Palestines homes and used excessive brutality to remove them from Israeli territory. Israels kill Palestines, because Palestines reacted with guerrila warfare.

And yet, with such hatred between sides, polls show about two thirds of Israelies and a similar number of Pakistanies are quite happy to leave the situation as it is, just to have real peace now. Most of the rest want UN/Government action against the other side, not war.


Our efforts need to focus on keeping it away from our own shores. You dont truly believe those people will ever stop fighting, do you ?

That statement just lost you a lot of my respect.

1.So, it's okay to have war and killing, just as long as the innocent civilians being killed are Iraqi, not American?

2.Those people?

3. They started because they were treated badly, do you really think treating them worse will make them stop? If the biggest terrorist threat is Islamic extremism stop creating a political situation which makes more islamic extremists!
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:16
So why was Clinton impeached?

I do not remember the clinton impeachment because I was young when it occured.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:20
The Constitution gives no authority to the President to put troops in a foreign country if Congress has not declared war.

Congress gave Bush the ability to do so. If that is the case then how come we have troops in other nations without a declaration of war?

Wiretapping Americans is a federal crime.

Actually, no its not.

He has also usurped a great deal of power, breaking the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

Actually he didn't. If Congress gives him the authority to do so then no he didn't.

He has also not done anything to stop (ALL) abortions, which are crimes.

:confused:

Federal aid to Hurricane Katrina is unConstitutional.

Where did this come from? If this is the case then all federal aide, regardless of disaster is unconstitutional.

The ports deal with Dubai was unConstitutional.

Don't know about this being unconstitutional. how is it unconstitutional?

US membership in the United Nations is unConstitutional, and giving American troops to the UN is not just unConstitutional, but anti-American and pro-"New World Order." George Bush's allegiance is not to America.

Pardon? What are you talking about here? I have no idea so can you clarify for this young girl please?

Yes, pretty much every President we've had should be impeached. It's just that Bush is one of the worse ones -- his fascist tendencies (wiretapping and nationalism) is astonishing.

Oh my god. You are totally insane. And coming from me, that is saying something since I'm a very tolerant girl.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:21
Errinundera']Please explain to an outsider (me) what warrants impeachment of a US president.

Thanks.

High crimes or misdemeanors which Bush hasn't done at all.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:22
Well, then I guess you'll just have to assume the oll data I gave you is correct. I provided you with a perfectly reasonable link from a qualified source and it took me all of one or two minutes to find it. Most Important Quality. there I just found it again. Took 30 seconds. Big bold type:

Most Important Quality

Like this is going to convince me that you are right. Your just being stupid if you think that. You do realize that exit poll data is really imprecise as not all people do them right?
The Ka-Tarek
24-03-2006, 22:23
I dont know, how many Americans are liberal?

A bit more than half the country.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:23
I dont know, how many Americans are liberal?

What does this have to do with it? Nothing.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 22:24
Errinundera']Please explain to an outsider (me) what warrants impeachment of a US president.

Thanks.
Impeachment simply means to bring charges against inorder to remove from office. The charges must be for a recognized crime, not a preceived one. In other words, it has to be something that a civilian can be prosecuted for in a court of law. Clinto, for example, was not impeached for getting ablow job, as many contend. He was impeached for lying under oath to a congress, a felony. Most presidents resign under threat of impeachment, though it has only happened a few times. Clinton actually went through the process and was not convicted. If he had been he would have lost his office.
[NS]Errinundera
24-03-2006, 22:25
High crimes or misdemeanors which Bush hasn't done at all.

Thanks. What was Clinton's high crime or misdemeanour? For balance, Nixon's?
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:26
Impeachment simply means to bring charges against inorder to remove from office. The charges must be for a recognized crime, not a preceived one. In other words, it has to be something that a civilian can be prosecuted for in a court of law. Clinto, for example, was not impeached for getting ablow job, as many contend. He was impeached for lying under oath to a congress, a felony. Most presidents resign under threat of impeachment, though it has only happened a few times. Clinton actually went through the process and was not convicted. If he had been he would have lost his office.

Two cases of Impeachment and 1 case where articles were drawn up but dropped upon Resignation.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:27
Errinundera']Thanks. What was Clinton's high crime or misdemeanour? For balance, Nixon's?

Clinton was already explained. As for Nixon, I believe it was Watergate if I remember my history classes correctly though he was never impeached.
The UN abassadorship
24-03-2006, 22:28
A bit more than half the country.
than a bit than have the country is stupid, so yeah 51% seems true. Thats a good study, it just proves my point.
Irnland
24-03-2006, 22:28
Quamia, man, you are not helping. Yes, bush is a moron, he should not be president, and too much nationalism is one of americas major problems, but the examples you gave that are quoted by WesternPA dont say much for your arguement. If Tsunami Aid really is unconstitutional (which I struggle to believe) it doesnt say much for the constitution.
Quamia
24-03-2006, 22:30
Congress gave Bush the ability to do so. If that is the case then how come we have troops in other nations without a declaration of war?
[...]
Actually he didn't. If Congress gives him the authority to do so then no he didn't.
[...]
Where did this come from? If this is the case then all federal aide, regardless of disaster is unconstitutional.
Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to give the President more power. Here is the part of the Constitution that says what Congress is allowed to do:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
If it's not there, it, if enacted by Congress, is unConstitutional. Remember that 90% of what the federal government does is unConstitutional, but this has not been recognized because of the increasing influence of godlessness in America today.

Pardon? What are you talking about here? I have no idea so can you clarify for this young girl please?
I just Googled it, because I don't want to have to explain. I didn't read over the article, but here's just the first result: http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_3462.shtml

It should hopefully explain what happened.

Oh my god. You are totally insane. And coming from me, that is saying something since I'm a very tolerant girl.
Most people think so. However, I am the only person in my school who really pays attention to the Constitution. I'm sure such a principle has similarity in this forum -- one must read and understand the Constitution before supporting any politician. Bush is not conservative because he does not defend the Constitution. Republicans used to defend it, but not anymore. I am from the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/).

It is highly recommended that you read, understand, and follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) instead of blindly supporting any President or politican agenda. I am conservative because my political agenda is the advance Christianity and the Constitution, but Bush clearly does not understand the Constitution.
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 22:31
Like this is going to convince me that you are right. Your just being stupid if you think that. You do realize that exit poll data is really imprecise as not all people do them right?
I said what the exit polls indicated. You called me on it as if to say I was making up the stats. I pointed you to a reliable source from where I got the stats. You said you didn't have time to look at them because you are doing your homework.

A. I was simply responding to your request for proof for the stats I posted so that you would know I didn't make them up and so that you would know they didn't come from Micheal Moore.

b. You sure have a lot of time to post for someone burried in homework. The amount of time it took you to type your last post would have been sufficient to find the stat I posted, particularily in light of the fact that the page has a search function.

c. Exit polls are only unreliable to people who don't like what they say. The fact is that even given the margin of error, which is published, the gap between people who thought Bush was the most intelligent and people who thought Kerry was is so gargantuan that you cannot explain it away by saying exit polls aren't exact.

d. Bush is a stupid man. You can tell it everytime he opens his mouth. Even many of his supporters admit his not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Xenophobialand
24-03-2006, 22:33
Clinton was already explained. As for Nixon, I believe it was Watergate if I remember my history classes correctly though he was never impeached.

He resigned before impeachment proceedings could take affect, but there was little doubt that had he not resigned, he would not only have been impeached but convicted as well. That's what happens when you send political cronies to steal information about your political opponents, then lie and attempt to use the full weight of the executive to try and stymie investigation, all the while declaring yourself above the law.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:34
Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to give the President more power. Here is the part of the Constitution that says what Congress is allowed to do:

Don't quote the Constitution to me. I know what it states. I guess you fail to know that Congress APPROVED IT!!!!!! And Yes, Congress does have the power to do whatever the heck it wants. They do, after all, Control the purse strings. If you do not like it, then file a lawsuit. I doubt you'll get far with it though.

If it's not there, it, if enacted by Congress, is unConstitutional. Remember that 90% of what the federal government does is unConstitutional, but this has not been recognized because of the increasing influence of godlessness in America today.

:rolleyes:

Most people think so. However, I am the only person in my school who really pays attention to the Constitution. I'm sure such a principle has similarity in this forum -- one must read and understand the Constitution before supporting any politician. Bush is not conservative because he does not defend the Constitution. Republicans used to defend it, but not anymore. I am from the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/).

I'm still waiting for a prosecutable crime that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
Xenophobialand
24-03-2006, 22:39
If it's not there, it, if enacted by Congress, is unConstitutional. Remember that 90% of what the federal government does is unConstitutional, but this has not been recognized because of the increasing influence of godlessness in America today.


So the Air Force is unconstitutional because of godlessness?
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 22:40
Errinundera']Thanks. What was Clinton's high crime or misdemeanour? For balance, Nixon's?
Clinton lied under oath to Congress and I believe Nixon's was similar. It had to do with coveriong up the Watergate break-in during the election campaign.
Quamia
24-03-2006, 22:42
And Yes, Congress does have the power to do whatever the heck it wants. They do, after all, Control the purse strings. If you do not like it, then file a lawsuit. I doubt you'll get far with it though.
Please understand that this is an extremely dangerous statement, especially the part saying, "Congress does have the power to do whatever the heck it wants."

You are a Republican cheerleader; take off your pom-poms and snap out of your daze. Stop pretending that Bush is a god and start recognizing that the God of the Bible is the supreme Sovereign over these United States of America.

Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=18), by Patrick Johnston
Quamia
24-03-2006, 22:43
So the Air Force is unconstitutional because of godlessness?
I follow an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution, but not that strict. :P
Insainania
24-03-2006, 22:44
I am the only person in my school who really pays attention to the Constitution. I'm sure such a principle has similarity in this forum -- one must read and understand the Constitution before supporting any politician. Bush is not conservative because he does not defend the Constitution. Republicans used to defend it, but not anymore.[/URL].

Pardon a simple Brit for asking, but wasn't the origional U.S. Constitution drafted by rich white landowning slaveholders? And didn't it origionaly declare freedom for the people, as long as they were rich white landowning slaveholders? Didn't it describe all blacks as the property of the rich white landowning slaveholders?

Considering the intended purpose of the constitution was to essentially keep Washington, Jefferson etc. in a job and prevent the lower classes from gaining any form of political power (thats right Ol' George didn't look too kindly on power to the people!), then quite frankly i'd be appalled at any politician who declared his support for such an atrocity.

While I don't mean to support G.W.B. because quite frankly, we all know he's heading south when he dies, but if he is unconstitutional then so what? Its a set of primarily outdated laws, designed for the suppression of the people and the advancment of the WASPs.

Hell the position of President was only created to fool the people into believing some sort of monarchy still existed.

Anyway, as you pay attention to the constitution, I thought you could enlighten me.

P.S. Sorry to burst the bubble, but Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves, he'd have left them all in chains if it meant keeping America from fighting. Gotta love those ideals!
PsychoticDan
24-03-2006, 22:47
Please understand that this is an extremely dangerous statement, especially the part saying, "Congress does have the power to do whatever the heck it wants."

You are a Republican cheerleader; take off your pom-poms and snap out of your daze. Stop pretending that Bush is a god and start recognizing that the God of the Bible is the supreme Sovereign over these United States of America.
And you're a strict constructionist, bible thumping wacko with a very poor understanding of the Constitution and how it is interpreted. The Constutution is a document that only says what the different branches can do, not what they can't. The reality is that in order to run an effective government you can't look at the Constitution and decide, "It seems the Constitution doesn't say we can do this." You need to look at it and decide, "It seems the Constitution says we can't do this." If you don't understand the difference I suggest you take a constitutional law class. Even reasonable constructionists abide by that standard.
WesternPA
24-03-2006, 22:48
Please understand that this is an extremely dangerous statement, especially the part saying, "Congress does have the power to do whatever the heck it wants."

You are a Republican cheerleader; take off your pom-poms and snap out of your daze. Stop pretending that Bush is a god and start recognizing that the God of the Bible is the supreme Sovereign over these United States of America.

I'm not political at all. I really am not. Congress has abrogated (is that the word I want?) its responsibilities. If they did that then the President cannot be held responsible for whatever he is allowed to do via what Congress gave him the power to do.
Insainania
24-03-2006, 22:49
Correction - my appologies, in that last post it should read - Decleration of Independence NOT Constitution! Sorry!

Mind the constiution isn't too much to shout about! Yay guns!
The Alma Mater
24-03-2006, 22:49
It is highly recommended that you read, understand, and follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html) instead of blindly supporting any President or politican agenda. I am conservative because my political agenda is the advance Christianity and the Constitution, but Bush clearly does not understand the Constitution.

Eeehm.. while the USA was founded as a religious nation, one of the most important points is that is is NOT a Christian nation. It respects every religion. Someone whose political agenda is to advance Christianity at the cost of other religions is therefor an enemy of the constitution...