NationStates Jolt Archive

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

It's "should he have," not "should he of."

thats irelevent to the topic

Given the choices on the ballot........Absolutely!

can i ask, what idiots would vote for HIM?

OOO! What a new and original topic!! :headbang:

OOO! What a new and original topic!! :headbang:
if your going to join in this topic at least post something USEFUL! AND SENSIBLE!

can i ask, what idiots would vote for HIM?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/


I voted for President Bush for on both elections.

do you regret it?

do you regret it?

Nope, with that being said, I don't agree with all of his policies. He does mean well and like I said earlier....Look at the choices on the ballot.

if your going to join in this topic at least post something USEFUL! AND SENSIBLE!

I am. Having seen this topic *every* day for the past 920 or so, I'm positing that it is about as useful to discuss as the Specie Payment Resumption Act of 1875. EVERYTHING there is to know about it has already been done. There is nothing new to say.

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?
The short answer is no. The long answer is noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

I'm sorry, but I have to completely dismiss your post due to the unbearable, horrible grammatical error in the title of your post that awakens the latent Grammar Commie within. It's Should've! It's a fjorking contraction! :headbang:

Furthermore, of course George W. Bush should have not become the President of the United States. This has been debated endlessly. Get a new topic.

you make a good point and i agree, but i think its an issue that needs stressing, besides it's interesting what people opinions are!

You know what?

Who cares anymore?

As far as Im concerned, 2007 marks the last year of his term in office, and thank whatever gods you have that the ignorant swine cant get re-elected.

Im as liberal as just about anyone on this board and even I say this topic is useless.
Lets focus on getting through this last year, and hopefully put someone with half a functional brain in the Oval Office.

I voted for Bush twice as well. I disagree with very little of what he has done. I don't think he has done enough truly.

can i ask, what idiots would vote for HIM?

I trusted george bush for a long time...... UNTIL A family member got sweeped away into the war of Iraq!:headbang:
Now I say Die, George Bush, Die!:mp5:

i'm sorry to hear about that, thats why he is a faliure, the war in iraq has gone too far, Britain and America should have pulled out ages ago!

I voted for Bush twice as well. I disagree with very little of what he has done. I don't think he has done enough truly.

Thank you for your input, Mr. "I'm So Obviously a Puppet Created for Devil's Advocate/Opposition Arguing That It's Almost Sickening."

I trusted george bush for a long time...... UNTIL A family member got sweeped away into the war of Iraq!:headbang:
Now I say Die, George Bush, Die!:mp5:

Swept away? Is that what we are calling voluntary enlistment these days?

If you are not willing to support any and all possible military engagements your country may enter, then DON'T JOIN ITS MILITARY! It's that simple, you can't then whine about it, and blame it on higher powers, afterwards.

The answer is YES. Yes, he was elected President. Yes, he is President. Yes, he will be President until January 20, 2009.

And yes, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Deal with it and move on.

Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)

Learn some history dude. The US Senate in a unanamous decision stated that they would not approve of it and in the same resolution stated that no treaty that would do economic harm to this country shall be brought forth. Clinton's rep signed it anyway and Clinton sat on it. Bush just removed our signature from it.

Now wants to invade Iran for some reason.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?)

Because Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA to make sure it is only for peaceful means as specified in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

What about Russia and China too?

can i ask, what idiots would vote for HIM?

Considering who he was up against, I would have voted for Bush too. OH wait! I did vote for him in 2004 because Kerry was dumber than Bush. Besides that, his wife was an ass.

Nope, with that being said, I don't agree with all of his policies. He does mean well and like I said earlier....Look at the choices on the ballot.

Here here.

you make a good point and i agree, but i think its an issue that needs stressing, besides it's interesting what people opinions are!

Needs to be stressed? Son, its been stressed since I've been around. And no, it has not been since this month of this year either. This has been debated enough and the people have spoken twice that they want GWB as President over both Al Gore and John Kerry.

I trusted george bush for a long time...... UNTIL A family member got sweeped away into the war of Iraq!:headbang:
Now I say Die, George Bush, Die!:mp5:

I have had several family members go off to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Does not mean I hate or like Bush. He is the President and thus has access to more info than anyone here, including the press.

Who gives a fuck about the other choices on the ballot?

When you vote for someone, you are saying you believe they can and will represent your political, social and economic beliefs and goals. You are endorsing them. You are saying to them, "Represent me. I support you."

Now let's say there's an election, and it's Stalin running against Hitler. Now a lot of people will vote for Hitler because he didn't wind up killing as many people, but a lot will vote for Stalin because he didn't kill people in quite such a methodical fashion...

I'm guessing not many will choose not to vote. You'll pick one or the other based on how "less evil" it is. "Hey, at least you're not Satan himself! I'll vote for you then!"

Wake up when you figure out just what an election is, and what a vote is. With so many people wiping their asses with their ballots it's no wonder this country is going where it is.

can i ask, what idiots would vote for HIM?

As for who voted for "HIM", voters in states with a majority of electoral votes did in 2000. 50 million+ voters did in 2004. More than voted for Kerry. That's two for two.

As for "idiots," you'll have to look elsewhere. Given the tenor of your question, I might suggest a mirror.

Who gives a fuck about the other choices on the ballot?

When you vote for someone, you are saying you believe they can and will represent your political, social and economic beliefs and goals. You are endorsing them. You are saying to them, "Represent me. I support you."

Now let's say there's an election, and it's Stalin running against Hitler. Now a lot of people will vote for Hitler because he didn't wind up killing as many people, but a lot will vote for Stalin because he didn't kill people in quite such a methodical fashion...

I'm guessing not many will choose not to vote. You'll pick one or the other based on how "less evil" it is. "Hey, at least you're not Satan himself! I'll vote for you then!"

Wake up when you figure out just what an election is, and what a vote is. With so many people wiping their asses with their ballots it's no wonder this country is going where it is.

Obviously you don't understand the elections to well. It's of the utmost importance in regards to who is on the ballots. If nobody voted because they don't like President Bush and nobody voted for Kerry in the 2004 election who would have been President in a zero voter turn out? My guess is President Bush since he is the current President elected in the 2000 election. Voters must vote for a candidate who is on the ballot. If not, it would move us to some sort of dictatorship.

As for most nations who have open and free elections, it wounds up being the lesser of 2 evils. Unfortunately, the politicians have forced the public to view them like that but the bottom line is you should vote for who is on the ballot. I suppose you could write in a name but could you imagine 300,000,000 different names. :p

Trust me, America isn't nearly as bad as you think it is. Their is a whole lot of good stuff that America does, in my own opinion, it outweighs the negative. I really wish people could stop focusing on the negative and see the good. We, Americans in general, take life and our truly Great Nation for granted. The sad part is that some don't comprehend or realize how good they truly have it. Truly Sad. I Love America. May God continue to Bless Us All!! and Merry Christmas to ALL.

Obviously you don't understand the elections to well.

Oh, yeah. That's gotta be it.

Voters must vote for a candidate who is on the ballot.

untrue. play again sometime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate)


If not, it would move us to some sort of dictatorship.


??? are you drunk?

I'm not sure about the quality of the 2000 election (I doubt it) but his ensuing six years have been absolutely disastrous. US Presidents don't really get much worse than Bush. He also really brings out the worst in the American people.

I'm not sure about the quality of the 2000 election (I doubt it) but his ensuing six years have been absolutely disastrous. US Presidents don't really get much worse than Bush. He also really brings out the worst in the American people.

And yet, there have been worse presidents than GWB.

Considering who he was up against, I would have voted for Bush too. OH wait! I did vote for him in 2004 because Kerry was dumber than Bush. Besides that, his wife was an ass.
But Bush's first term sucked so much! Why vote for him again?

Needs to be stressed? Son, its been stressed since I've been around.
Less than a month?

And yet, there have been worse presidents than GWB.
Oh yes, certainly. Like Reagan. But Bush is pretty bad, I mean.

You know, there were more than two sets of names, peeps. There were plenty of third party candidates to vote for if the two main peeps didn't appeal to you.

But Bush's first term sucked so much! Why vote for him again?

Because Kerry was an idiot as was his wife during the elections.

Less than a month?

Do you see the 2 next to my name?

Oh yes, certainly. Like Reagan. But Bush is pretty bad, I mean.

Reagan was a bad president? *Dies of laughter* I was thinking more along the lines of Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, James Carter. They were all worse than President Bush.

You know, there were more than two sets of names, peeps. There were plenty of third party candidates to vote for if the two main peeps didn't appeal to you.

THat is indeed a good point.

Because Kerry was an idiot as was his wife during the elections.
He couldn't have made a worse president than Bush.

Do you see the 2 next to my name?
I've been around NS for more than two years (Siljhouettes, Swimmingpool, Eruantalon, Meath Street, etc.) and I don't remember any Allegheny County before.

Reagan was a bad president?
If you lived in Ireland you would understand. You wouldn't believe the number of Irish Catholic missionaries who came home with horror stories about Contra atrocities of priest-hunting, deliberate civilian killing, etc. Only those with no compassion whatsoever could support Reagan.

I was thinking more along the lines of Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, James Carter. They were all worse than President Bush.
LBJ was pretty awful, though he did at least make some steps in reducing America's poverty rate.

Ford and Carter were better than Bush even if only because they didn't do anything useful.

He couldn't have made a worse president than Bush.

He put to many people to sleep.

I've been around NS for more than two years (Siljhouettes, Swimmingpool, Eruantalon, Meath Street, etc.) and I don't remember any Allegheny County before.

Maybe this will jog your memory, My primary nation started with a C....... you can fill in the blanks if ya like :)

If you lived in Ireland you would understand. You wouldn't believe the number of Irish Catholic missionaries who came home with horror stories about Contra atrocities of priest-hunting, deliberate civilian killing, etc. Only those with no compassion whatsoever could support Reagan.

Luckily, I study this crap. Maybe to you he was a bad president but you cant take a single incident and say this makes someone a bad president.

LBJ was pretty awful, though he did at least make some steps in reducing America's poverty rate.

Still a bad president.

Ford and Carter were better than Bush even if only because they didn't do anything useful.

Better than Bush? Carter did nothing but launch an ill equipped military op that resulted in the deaths of Americans during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. He did nothing but talk talk talk. Ford was bad because he pardoned Nixon and did pretty much nothing while in office.

He never was selected president. He lost in 2000, cried so sued to the Surpreme court who said he won even though they don't have the power to do that, It should have gone to the House of Reps.

2004, in our city they were counting votes manually in the basement. Does that sound lit. to you???

My personal opinion is no.

So is mine. Then again, I believe the same of all his opponents.

Luckily, I study this crap. Maybe to you he was a bad president but you cant take a single incident and say this makes someone a bad president.No, but you can take several atrocious incidents and say that it makes someone a bad president.

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

Of course he should have. George W Bush is a great man, a visionary president who will leave a legacy that will not soon be forgotten. He has singlehandedly killed thousands of terrorists with his bare hands, brought freedom to those who had none, and saved precious barrels of oil from the dirty clutches of the Iraqis. None in their right minds would vote against such a man, unless they are themselves terrorists, or worse, liberals.

He lost in 2000, cried so sued to the Surpreme court who said he won even though they don't have the power to do that, It should have gone to the House of Reps.

Oh grow up. I'm tired of hearing people like yourself stating that he stole the election. It is not true and we all know its not true so my advice to you is get over it.

2004, in our city they were counting votes manually in the basement. Does that sound lit. to you???

Prove it.

I'm not sure about the quality of the 2000 election (I doubt it) but his ensuing six years have been absolutely disastrous. US Presidents don't really get much worse than Bush. He also really brings out the worst in the American people.

I voted for him twice. I campaigned for him twice. I am glad he won. I'm glad Algore and Lurch went down in defeat and disgrace. I support the majority of his policies, though not all. And I thoroughly enjoy seeing the children and the childish, on this board and elsewhere, continue to whine, bitch, cry and complain about it. Whenever I need someone to laugh at, there they are, reporting for duty :p

Fortunately for our country and the world, the children and the childish don't have any influence where it counts. Too bad. Deal with it.

Bush was legitimately elected in two elections. He deserves to be President, regardless of what peoples' opinions are on the matter; I wouldn't vote for him if he ran now, but when he did win people thought he was the better candidate and chose him. That's the way democracy works.

Bush was legitimately elected in two elections. He deserves to be President, regardless of what peoples' opinions are on the matter; I wouldn't vote for him if he ran now, but when he did win people thought he was the better candidate and chose him. That's the way democracy works.

I am never going to be able to call the 2000 election legitimate. Far as I'm concerned he stole that election with the help of his Republican lackeys. Therefore though he DID win 2004 "legitimatly" since he didn't actually win 2000 I find the '04 election wrong as well.

Regardless, I can hardly see how anyone could ever say that Bush should have been elected. We are hardly in a position to call ourself better off now then we were when Clinton left office. On about all fronts you can think of, Bush has shot this country in the foot. If not someplace even more vital.

I am never going to be able to call the 2000 election legitimate. Far as I'm concerned he stole that election with the help of his Republican lackeys. Therefore though he DID win 2004 "legitimatly" since he didn't actually win 2000 I find the '04 election wrong as well.

Eh, if he had done something wrong there would've been an investigation by the FEC and the state attorney generals.

Regardless, I can hardly see how anyone could ever say that Bush should have been elected. We are hardly in a position to call ourself better off now then we were when Clinton left office. On about all fronts you can think of, Bush has shot this country in the foot. If not someplace even more vital.

To be fair, though, most of the things that have happened are neither his fault nor could he control them. He got elected at the start of a recession and in the midst of the biggest rally in oil prices since 1979; given the kind of crap our economy has been hit with, its performance is remarkable.

The main fuck-up he's had is Iraq; there are a few others, but that's the real one that's dragging him down.

Maybe this will jog your memory, My primary nation started with a C....... you can fill in the blanks if ya like :)
I need more information than that.

Luckily, I study this crap. Maybe to you he was a bad president but you cant take a single incident and say this makes someone a bad president.
Single incident? The man unleashed a campaign of terror upon most of Central America! But, hey his victims were mostly Catholic so it must be OK.

He supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, and Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile.

He was determined to divert money away from helping the poor and old of America, and waste it on guns and bombs instead.

What I gave before was just an example, and there are just a few more.

Still a bad president.
I think we can all agree that Johnson was crap.

Better than Bush? Carter did nothing but launch an ill equipped military op that resulted in the deaths of Americans during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. He did nothing but talk talk talk.
That's "just a single incident" blah, blah. :rolleyes:

Ford was bad because he pardoned Nixon and did pretty much nothing while in office.
This is what I'm talking about: Bush has done nothing good. Ford did nothing. That is preferable.

Fortunately for our country and the world, the children and the childish don't have any influence where it counts.
So the majority of the world (who oppose Bush) don't know what's good for them. Right.

It doesn't surprise me that you campaigned for him; in any other country you would be on the fringe right-wing of the political spectrum.

Too bad. Deal with it.
I deal with it just fine every day; I wonder if his victims do?

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

See, this is what happens when people watch the "Daily Show" and perceive it as real news. GAHHH.

Anywho, He invaded Iraq with 91% popular support and near unanimous congressional support (both sides of the aisle), the Kyoto treaty never would have received support from congressional republicans, so a signature would have been unlikely. And the reason was not "it will affect our economy" good sir, it was thought too cause economic lag in the industrial infrastructure of America by means of foreign regulation and obligation, as defined by other world powers. He does not want too Invade Iran, cliché' "Bush Basher" (This is what their coming too?) He wants them too suspend their nuclear enrichment, along with a great deal of congressional support (*cough* Hillary Clinton) Because, well lets look at Iran. And anti-Israel mentally unstable authoritarian leader, who's very officers train Shiite militia too kill coalition forces in Iraq, and that he is spewing human fecal matter out of his oral cavity when he announces his aspirations for a peaceful nuclear program, as for means of energy. He wants too hold greater sway over the region, which will do no more than too get neighboring Arab countries too stockpile, de-stabilizing the region further. These are a few reasons. Americas nuclear program, if you actually knew anything about America other than the Daily Show, you'd know that America stockpile is large, but is in the process of de-armament over a great period of time.


Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the new generation of Bush Bashers has too offer. I'm optimistic. :D

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

I have one thing to say...

Who gives a shit?

Pacifist Womble:

C _ r _ _ l _ u

To be fair, though, most of the things that have happened are neither his fault nor could he control them. He got elected at the start of a recession and in the midst of the biggest rally in oil prices since 1979; given the kind of crap our economy has been hit with, its performance is remarkable.

The main fuck-up he's had is Iraq; there are a few others, but that's the real one that's dragging him down.

Along with Iraq I like to think of his assaults on the Constitution. Those are fun to think about.

Along with Iraq I like to think of his assaults on the Constitution. Those are fun to think about.

Yeah, but Iraq is the one that's actually going to have a lasting effect; that stuff will be gradually eliminated once he's gone.

Yeah, but Iraq is the one that's actually going to have a lasting effect; that stuff will be gradually eliminated once he's gone.

I'd like to believe that but I am too pessimistic to believe that. Iraq though... most definately that whole disaster is going to haunt us for decades.

Al Gore should've been president, he would've got it too, if florida hadnt voted for bush

Al Gore should've been president, he would've got it too, if florida hadnt voted for bush

You know Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, attacked our civil rights. Things would be much different today, for the better I'm sure.

You know Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, attacked our civil rights. Things would be much different today, for the better I'm sure.

He would've freaked and hid after 9/11.

Pacifist Womble:

C _ r _ _ l _ u
Hi there Corneliu!

You seem to have become a lot more politically moderate. You were once ultra right wing, but you have changed for the better. Once you get over your lingering partisanship you'll be ready to debate properly.

He would've freaked and hid after 9/11.
Oh come on, you don't really believe that do you? Be reasonable. We certainly would have got an invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq is not connected to the war on terrorism.

Hi there Corneliu!

You seem to have become a lot more politically moderate. You were once ultra right wing, but you have changed for the better. Once you get over your lingering partisanship you'll be ready to debate properly.

I have always stated that I am more moderate than I have been given credit for. Ok, in person I am more moderate. On here, anyone can be who they want to be :D

Oh come on, you don't really believe that do you? Be reasonable. We certainly would have got an invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq is not connected to the war on terrorism.

One will never know.

See, this is what happens when people watch the "Daily Show" and perceive it as real news. GAHHH.

Anywho, He invaded Iraq with 91% popular support and near unanimous congressional support (both sides of the aisle), the Kyoto treaty never would have received support from congressional republicans, so a signature would have been unlikely. And the reason was not "it will affect our economy" good sir, it was thought too cause economic lag in the industrial infrastructure of America by means of foreign regulation and obligation, as defined by other world powers. He does not want too Invade Iran, cliché' "Bush Basher" (This is what their coming too?) He wants them too suspend their nuclear enrichment, along with a great deal of congressional support (*cough* Hillary Clinton) Because, well lets look at Iran. And anti-Israel mentally unstable authoritarian leader, who's very officers train Shiite militia too kill coalition forces in Iraq, and that he is spewing human fecal matter out of his oral cavity when he announces his aspirations for a peaceful nuclear program, as for means of energy. He wants too hold greater sway over the region, which will do no more than too get neighboring Arab countries too stockpile, de-stabilizing the region further. These are a few reasons. Americas nuclear program, if you actually knew anything about America other than the Daily Show, you'd know that America stockpile is large, but is in the process of de-armament over a great period of time.


Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the new generation of Bush Bashers has too offer. I'm optimistic. :D


Oh for god's sake. There is so much wrong and in fact completely false in your post tat I am not even going to refute it> I am just going to laugh at you. Look: here I am laughing:

ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

91%?

BWah hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!

You are fuuny!

Pull the other one now, willya?

Relax, it's got bells on.

He would've freaked and hid after 9/11.

If you are a Bush supporter I will be very disappointed. :(

If you are a Bush supporter I will be very disappointed. :(

1) Yes I did vote for Bush only because Lieberman did not get the nomination.

2) That was ment as a joke.

1) Yes I did vote for Bush only because Lieberman did not get the nomination.

2) That was ment as a joke.

I messed up my previous post but I do really hope that at least you do not care for Bush today. It seems many people have come to the realization that he is not good for America. About time too.

You may have noticed in my sig that I really don't care for him at all. :D

I messed up my previous post but I do really hope that at least you do not care for Bush today. It seems many people have come to the realization that he is not good for America. About time too.

I support some policies and not others. Do I approve of him? eh, depends on the subject matter.

I support some policies and not others. Do I approve of him? eh, depends on the subject matter.

Come on, it becomes a pro/con thing. Shouldn't be too hard to decide if you support Bush or not. He's one of those hate him or love him kind of people you know. :)

Come on, it becomes a pro/con thing. Shouldn't be too hard to decide if you support Bush or not. He's one of those hate him or love him kind of people you know. :)

Depends on the issue if I support him or not.

he IS doing some good things.


he'll do BETTER things when he leaves office.

Depends on the issue if I support him or not.

But you can decide if his negatives outweigh anything positive he might do.

he IS doing some good things.


he'll do BETTER things when he leaves office.

Some could say all presidents do more important things after they leave office. Politics being less of a factor after all.

I'd like to believe that but I am too pessimistic to believe that. Iraq though... most definately that whole disaster is going to haunt us for decades.

Well, let's put it this way: We either win, costing us a fortune and increasing the burden defense spending is putting on our government's finances, or we give up and totally ruin any chance we have of seriously affecting Middle Eastern policy for a long time.

Either way, we're hurting strategically for a while. I think we'll rebound from this fiasco once the dust settles, but it's going to hurt in the next decade or so.

But you can decide if his negatives outweigh anything positive he might do.



Some could say all presidents do more important things after they leave office. Politics being less of a factor after all.

Proportionally, any president should do more as president than as an ex president. Bush has failed badly at it. His legacy is going to be AMerican humiliation and years of recovering from his financial stupidity. When he leaves the good thing he will do is simply to not be messing anything else up.

Proportionally, any president should do more as president than as an ex president. Bush has failed badly at it. His legacy is going to be AMerican humiliation and years of recovering from his financial stupidity. When he leaves the good thing he will do is simply to not be messing anything else up.

With a Democratic congress, that's not going to be a concern. He's handcuffed on any major party-line issues for the next two years; most of the stuff will be bipartisan or heavily watered down Democratic proposals.

Bush is a hero who defends freedom and democracy all around the globe.

And yet, there have been worse presidents than GWB.

Much as I detest Bush, I agree.

If you are a Bush supporter I will be very disappointed. :(
Perhaps you are unaware but:

Allegheny County 2 = Corneliu

I've been around NS for more than two years (Siljhouettes, Swimmingpool, Eruantalon, Meath Street, etc.) and I don't remember any Allegheny County before.
Why do people keep changing on here? Aren't people comfortable with who they are?

Allegheny County = Allegheny County 2 = Corneliu

Much as I detest Bush, I agree.

Did you vote in my poll? Who are you thinking of?

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

Give it up you all, he was elected, he was re-elected and he will step down when his term expires.

Give it up you all, he was elected, he was re-elected and he will step down when his term expires.

May people suggest that the way the US election system works is ridiculous ? He has far too much power for someone who only represents about 50% of the voters. And yes, I would have said the same about any other candidate.

Perhaps you are unaware but:

Allegheny County 2 = Corneliu

I was very unaware. But my eyes are opened now. Explains things perfectly. :)

my rights are slipping everyday. he has the most power of any president yet. if for some reason he is put into "emergency power" after the elections in 08 im leaving the country. :sniper:

I have always stated that I am more moderate than I have been given credit for.
And there was always a pretty good reason why the rest of us begged to differ.

One will never know.
So, going to take back your statement?

It would help prove your "moderation", and maybe so would answering my points (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12130506&postcount=48).

Depends on the issue if I support him or not.
Just to let you know at this point, US foreign policy is pretty much all I care about when it comes to Bush, and you appear to support him in that area, so...

Bush was legitimately elected in two elections. He deserves to be President, regardless of what peoples' opinions are on the matter; I wouldn't vote for him if he ran now, but when he did win people thought he was the better candidate and chose him. That's the way democracy works.

I seem to remember there was some kind of scandal over the Florida vote. At the time is sure smelled like ballot rigging though of course nothing can be proved.

I don't know enough about it to know if it would have made a difference though. If anyone knows more about it then please post :)

Perhaps you are unaware but:

Allegheny County 2 = Corneliu
Ah, your ancient foe. Let the duelling (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/duelists.htm) resume!

Why do people keep changing on here? Aren't people comfortable with who they are?
Some of us can't be bothered to frequently update our nations, so we get banned for inactivity. I also don't really like my current name any more, so I welcome the day when I see myself deleted yet again.

Give it up you all, he was elected, he was re-elected and he will step down when his term expires.
Since the Democrats are now a majority, this may as well have already happened.


my rights are slipping everyday. he has the most power of any president yet. if for some reason he is put into "emergency power" after the elections in 08 im leaving the country. :sniper:
I wouldn't worry about that. For the above reason.

Some of us can't be bothered to frequently update our nations, so we get banned for inactivity. I also don't really like my current name any more, so I welcome the day when I see myself deleted yet again.

My nation died quite a while ago. I can still post ;)

You know what?

Who cares anymore?

As far as Im concerned, 2007 marks the last year of his term in office, and thank whatever gods you have that the ignorant swine cant get re-elected.

Im as liberal as just about anyone on this board and even I say this topic is useless.
Lets focus on getting through this last year, and hopefully put someone with half a functional brain in the Oval Office.

Unless he decides to convince Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment :D

And like you said, it doesn't matter anymore anyway, because Bush's "legacy" is gonna' be with us for a long time...damn.

And there was always a pretty good reason why the rest of us begged to differ.


So, going to take back your statement?

It would help prove your "moderation", and maybe so would answering my points (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12130506&postcount=48).

I have to keep some secrets. I will do my best to answer them when I have the time. Today though is Christmas Day and tomorrow I leave for Philly to be with my GF. So I will not be around much in the next several days.

Just to let you know at this point, US foreign policy is pretty much all I care about when it comes to Bush, and you appear to support him in that area, so...

Truthfully speaking, he did not use enough troops for Iraq. He should have put more troops into the nation than he did and for that, I blame him for what is going on. I blame him for underestimating the Insurgency as well. I still thought the Iraq War was right but how he went about it was wrong.

Use your brains , I don't think bush should be president BUT u.s wil get a even worse-a-president in his absense the demorcrats will ruin everything and by all rights he should invade Iran.

Anyone notice that the OP has not returned to answer this thread? He also failed to debate the points I brought up. Hmmm.

Anyone notice that the OP has not returned to answer this thread? He also failed to debate the points I brought up. Hmmm.

It is Christmas day. Some silly heretics choose to spend that day outside general.

He would've freaked and hid after 9/11.

Three words:
My
Pet
Goat
:rolleyes:

I seem to remember there was some kind of scandal over the Florida vote. At the time is sure smelled like ballot rigging though of course nothing can be proved.

I don't know enough about it to know if it would have made a difference though. If anyone knows more about it then please post :)

Grand Theft America (http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html)
More information (http://www.atypicalweb.com/?p=186) on voter disenfranchisement in Florida's 2000 "election".

Considering that G.W. "won" the election by less than 1000 votes in Florida it is plain to see that he should never have been "elected" pResident in the first place.

During Bush's term in office we have run up the largest debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm) in history.
Bush, with the help of the "Conservative" Republican Congress have added more to the national debt (http://zfacts.com/p/461.html) than all previous Presidents combined.

And that is only one issue that Bush, and a compliant Congress, should answer for.

Should he have been elected? That's the thing about democracy and democratically elected republics like what we have. Power shifts from time to time when people get so fed up with the cons of the party in power that they only see the pros of the other. If not Bush in 2000 then it would have been someone else in 2004 for sure. He won on a technicality but he still won. It is pointless to debate what should be and have been. Instead we should move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.

No, he is not worthy of being president.

His hands are soaked in blood. No such person is ever worthy of having any position of power.

So the majority of the world (who oppose Bush) don't know what's good for them. Right.

I don't give a rat's ass about "what's good for them". I am concerned solely with what's good for us. And that includes crushing our enemies, not making nice with them because "the majority of the world" lacks the fortitude to do what's necessary.

It doesn't surprise me that you campaigned for him; in any other country you would be on the fringe right-wing of the political spectrum.

I also don't give a rat's ass about where in the political spectrum I'd be "in any other country." I only care about my country. And in my country, much to your consternation, I am far from being on the "fringe right-wing".

I deal with it just fine every day; I wonder if his victims do?

Why don't you ask one, like Zarqawi? Of course, you'll have to use a Ouija board to do it :p

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?
Funny how the first whole page got by without someone saying "He wasn't even elected president. It was settled, however dubiously, through the Supreme Court, NOT the voting process."
At least, the 2000 version reads as such.

Oh for god's sake. There is so much wrong and in fact completely false in your post tat I am not even going to refute it> I am just going to laugh at you. Look: here I am laughing:

ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

91%?

BWah hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaha!

You are fuuny!

Pull the other one now, willya?

Relax, it's got bells on.

And I thought clever counter-credible situation and sophisticated sentence structuring was the way too counter a perspective, versus the retarded second grader laugh, which you mastered beautifully! :D

See your so into bush bashing and....ectasy, you cant even look into fact.

See your so into bush bashing and....ectasy, you cant even look into fact.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12132564&postcount=92

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12132564&postcount=92

Would you like me too send you a telegram countering all those points so you can go too sleep without any nightmares?

Would you like me too send you a telegram countering all those points so you can go too sleep without any nightmares?

Think a lot of yourself, eh? :rolleyes:
Go ahead. You have neither the wherewithal nor the resources to back up your drivelous pith.


Besides, i've covered much more ground here over this than you're likely to imagine.

Further, if you actually have it, go ahead and post it here, so it won't just be myself reviewing your "sources" and your "information".
Certainly you don't fear a little criticism, eh?

Think a lot of yourself, eh? :rolleyes:
Go ahead. You have neither the wherewithal nor the resources to back up your drivelous pith.


Besides, i've covered much more ground here over this than you're likely to imagine.

Further, if you actually have it, go ahead and post it here, so it won't just be myself reviewing your "sources" and your "information".
Certainly you don't fear a little criticism, eh?

Well we are online, therefore 96% of it will be crticism. Whats the matter, you cannot deteremine fact from fiction without holding someones hand?

You havent covered any ground, you've re-stated major points of the left, some of which are very legitimate. Its laughable you try too put yourself in this position.

As for the resources, I have more than what has been hardened, defined and brought too a scienece, (AKA modern center-left slander)

Expect a tag buddy.

Funny how the first whole page got by without someone saying "He wasn't even elected president. It was settled, however dubiously, through the Supreme Court, NOT the voting process."
At least, the 2000 version reads as such.

Which is pure BS.

Well we are online, therefore 96% of it will be crticism. Whats the matter, you cannot deteremine fact from fiction without holding someones hand?

The point is fair. Post it here.

I don't give a rat's ass about "what's good for them". I am concerned solely with what's good for us. And that includes crushing our enemies, not making nice with them because "the majority of the world" lacks the fortitude to do what's necessary.

Define "necessary".

Well we are online, therefore 96% of it will be crticism. Whats the matter, you cannot deteremine fact from fiction without holding someones hand?

You havent covered any ground, you've re-stated major points of the left, some of which are very legitimate. Its laughable you try too put yourself in this position.

As for the resources, I have more than what has been hardened, defined and brought too a scienece, (AKA modern center-left slander)

Expect a tag buddy.

You're putting up a real good argument there, mate. :rolleyes:

I don't give a rat's ass about "what's good for them". I am concerned solely with what's good for us. And that includes crushing our enemies, not making nice with them because "the majority of the world" lacks the fortitude to do what's necessary.
If you want to fuck up the world, and increase the terrorist problem, to satisfy your own testosterone, that makes you the childish one.

I also don't give a rat's ass about where in the political spectrum I'd be "in any other country."
Your idol Stalin was no doubt quite content in his own centrism.

I only care about my country. And in my country, much to your consternation, I am far from being on the "fringe right-wing".
Then we in Europe had better start the preparations for the 2017 beach head landings at Newfoundland.

Why don't you ask one, like Zarqawi? Of course, you'll have to use a Ouija board to do it
Where's your respect for human life? For every Zarqawi there's a thousand innocent people who were killed.

The fact that you have to resort to lying (every victim is deserving terrorist!) shows just how weak and indefensible your position is.

Three words:
My
Pet
Goat
:rolleyes:

Grand Theft America (http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html)
More information (http://www.atypicalweb.com/?p=186) on voter disenfranchisement in Florida's 2000 "election".

Considering that G.W. "won" the election by less than 1000 votes in Florida it is plain to see that he should never have been "elected" pResident in the first place.

During Bush's term in office we have run up the largest debt (http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm) in history.
Bush, with the help of the "Conservative" Republican Congress have added more to the national debt (http://zfacts.com/p/461.html) than all previous Presidents combined.

And that is only one issue that Bush, and a compliant Congress, should answer for.
Awesome post!! I wonder how many would actually take the time to view those vids though? I wonder how many will take the time to consider that democracy is being sacrificed in America?

I don't give a rat's ass about "what's good for them". I am concerned solely with what's good for us. And that includes crushing our enemies, not making nice with them because "the majority of the world" lacks the fortitude to do what's necessary.
Why do you hate democracy? Why can't you see that the policies of Bush are creating more enemies not less? Why can't you see that ultimately it is America that is being crushed from within?

I also don't give a rat's ass about where in the political spectrum I'd be "in any other country." I only care about my country. And in my country, much to your consternation, I am far from being on the "fringe right-wing".
From what I can see, you are about as right wing as anyone could go.

Perhaps this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Neoconservative:_Definition_and_views) is where you fit in?

Why don't you ask one, like Zarqawi? Of course, you'll have to use a Ouija board to do it :p
Many right wingers were hailing the death of Zarqawi as a momumental triumph for the war on terrorism, yet since his death, the situation in Iraq has worsened dramatically. The ideological blinders that you are wearing are so tight that you can't see reality.

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

WHAT?

You dont like george bush?????

You think he's a bad president??????????????

STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES! CALL THE FUCKING PAPER! FRONT PAGE NEW YORK TIMES!

If you want to fuck up the world, and increase the terrorist problem, to satisfy your own testosterone, that makes you the childish one.

Amazing how many references to "testosterone" emanate from a continent that is seriously deficient in that hormone.

Your idol Stalin was no doubt quite content in his own centrism.

LOL. My "idols" include Ronald Reagan, George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur. Also Charles Martel and Pope Urban II.

Then we in Europe had better start the preparations for the 2017 beach head landings at Newfoundland.

I don't know which comment to laugh at more, this one or the preceding one. "You in Europe" threatening to land anywhere when you don't have the guts to stop the invasion of your own continent by a hostile alien ideology, not to mention the balls (literally as well as figuratively) to reproduce yourselves to the extent necessary to prevent your own populations from crashing, is too funny for words. And on top of that, you threaten to invade CANADA because you're peeved at the US! :p

Where's your respect for human life? For every Zarqawi there's a thousand innocent people who were killed.

My "respect for human life" includes protecting innocent people by exterminating those like Zarqawi, UBL, the Taliban, and every roadside bomber in Iraq. Throw in the moolah-cracy in Iran for good measure.

And I've got news for you, pal: war is about breaking things and killing people. In war, people die. And your thousand-to-one allegation is meaningless.

If "innocent people" are dying, the blame lies entirely on the guilty people who are hiding among them and using them for cover.

Fortunately for the world, your attitude didn't prevail in the 1940's when "a thousand innocent" Germans and Japanese were killed for every storm trooper and concentration camp commandant.

snip

Jesus would spit on you. Your words show you to be far lower than the "enemies" you describe.

Why Republicans would even nominate a dumbfuck who bankrupted three companies given to him by Daddy in the first place is a mystery of politics.

It's like putting Michael Jackson or a Catholic Priest in charge of Child Protective Services.

Why do you hate democracy?

The ones who "hate democracy" are the crybabies, whiners, bitchers and losers who have done nothing but complain since the 2000 election, which they lost fair, square and democratically.

Why can't you see that the policies of Bush are creating more enemies not less?

1812: "Why can't you see that the policies of Madison are creating more enemies not less?"
1917: "Why can't you see that the policies of Wilson are creating more enemies not less?"
1941: "Why can't you see that the policies of Roosevelt are creating more enemies not less?"
1950: "Why can't you see that the policies of Truman are creating more enemies not less?"
1991: "Why can't you see that the policies of Bush 41 are creating more enemies not less?"

Different verse, same old song.

Why can't you see that ultimately it is America that is being crushed from within?

Thank God the Democrats were there to rescue us last November, eh?

From what I can see, you are about as right wing as anyone could go.

Perhaps this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Neoconservative:_Definition_and_views) is where you fit in?

And your point is?

Many right wingers were hailing the death of Zarqawi as a momumental triumph for the war on terrorism, yet since his death, the situation in Iraq has worsened dramatically. The ideological blinders that you are wearing are so tight that you can't see reality.

Many left wingers were hoping the death of Zarqawi was misreported. Many have been salivating for a terrorist victory in Iraq since day one, and continue to do so today. The ideological blinders that they are wearing are so tight that they can't see reality.

Your words show you to be far lower than the "enemies" you describe.

I don't care about being "higher" than the enemy, only about defeating and destroying the enemy. :mp5:

There's no substitute for victory, Sparky.

There's no substitute for victory, Sparky.

And the victor is always right ?
In that case: may the terrorists blow me up. Death is preferable to living in your world.

I don't care about being "higher" than the enemy, only about defeating and destroying the enemy. :mp5:

There's no substitute for victory, Sparky.

As if we're winning. Better send over a surge of gun-smileys, huh?

Did you vote in my poll? Who are you thinking of?

F.D.R., Truman, J.F.K., L.B.J., Nixon, and Carter.

And the victor is always right ?
In that case: may the terrorists blow me up. Death is preferable to living in your world.

With your attitude, you may just get your wish.

As if we're winning. Better send over a surge of gun-smileys, huh?
I've not even got a gun smiley. Just some odd looking blob. :(

Why Republicans would even nominate a dumbfuck who bankrupted three companies given to him by Daddy in the first place is a mystery of politics.

It's like putting Michael Jackson or a Catholic Priest in charge of Child Protective Services.

Best. Post. Ever.

I've not even got a gun smiley. Just some odd looking blob. :(

Must be a graphic representation of the current US strategy for winning in Iraq.

As if we're winning. Better send over a surge of gun-smileys, huh?

Better yet, another 200,000 troops with orders to clean out Sadr City, seal the borders with Iran and Syria and implement hot-pursuit. Which btw should have been done in 2003.

Must be a graphic representation of the current US strategy for winning in Iraq.
Nah. That would infer that the USA actually has or has had a strategy for winning in Iraq. Hell, they probably don't know what would even constitute as a victory.

Better yet, another 200,000 troops with orders to clean out Sadr City, seal the borders with Iran and Syria and implement hot-pursuit. Which btw should have been done in 2003.
Good luck. That's only about 2000 km of desert to patrol 24-7.

Eh, if he had done something wrong there would've been an investigation by the FEC and the state attorney generals.Isn't the purpose of an investigation to determine if something wrong was done as opposed to vice versa?

Awesome post!! I wonder how many would actually take the time to view those vids though? I wonder how many will take the time to consider that democracy is being sacrificed in America?

I call bullshit. If that were the case, then the Dems would not have gotten into office.

I call bullshit. If that were the case, then the Dems would not have gotten into office.

What? You mean ... Democrats ... democracy? :eek:

Of course he should have. George W Bush is a great man, a visionary president who will leave a legacy that will not soon be forgotten. He has singlehandedly killed thousands of terrorists with his bare hands, brought freedom to those who had none, and saved precious barrels of oil from the dirty clutches of the Iraqis. None in their right minds would vote against such a man, unless they are themselves terrorists, or worse, liberals.

...Am I so blind to sarcasm on this forum?
Or was that real?

...Am I so blind to sarcasm on this forum?
Or was that real?

Maybe you're only capable of detecting sarcasm when it's clever or original.

Amazing how many references to "testosterone" emanate from a continent that is seriously deficient in that hormone.

Yes,Europe is seriously deficient in testosterone.Remind me again,when did America join both the World Wars?Wait,were they late?Yes,they were.

LOL. My "idols" include Ronald Reagan, George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur. Also Charles Martel and Pope Urban II.

Those are some VERY bad idols to have.

know which comment to laugh at more, this one or the preceding one. "You in Europe" threatening to land anywhere when you don't have the guts to stop the invasion of your own continent by a hostile alien ideology, not to mention the balls (literally as well as figuratively) to reproduce yourselves to the extent necessary to prevent your own populations from crashing, is too funny for words. And on top of that, you threaten to invade CANADA because you're peeved at the US! :p

I take it the hostile alien ideology is Islam?
Bloody fucking hell,some of you just don't stop do you? "OH NO!TEH MOOSLEMS!THEY'RE ISLAMAZIZING US!SHARIA LAW,FUCK YEAH!"
Go play in traffic,seriously.

My "respect for human life" includes protecting innocent people by exterminating those like Zarqawi, UBL, the Taliban, and every roadside bomber in Iraq. Throw in the moolah-cracy in Iran for good measure.

As strange as it seems to you,those people you're so intent on killing are humans too.That's right,Muslims are humans too.

And I've got news for you, pal: war is about breaking things and killing people. In war, people die. And your thousand-to-one allegation is meaningless.

War shouldn't happen full stop.

If "innocent people" are dying, the blame lies entirely on the guilty people who are hiding among them and using them for cover.

But,surely the people who have caused those people to start killing others are partly to blame,for provoking them?

Fortunately for the world, your attitude didn't prevail in the 1940's when "a thousand innocent" Germans and Japanese were killed for every storm trooper and concentration camp commandant.

You're attitude was non-existent,you weren't there to fight till 1942.TWO YEARS after the war started.Don't start flaming off that we don't have any balls,or that we have no testosterone,because,newsflash,you simply weren't there to stop Hitler,or anything else.Not until you got your precious pride hurt by the Japanese.

Maybe you're only capable of detecting sarcasm when it's clever or original.

Perhaps.And Ginnoria's was neither.

War shouldn't happen full stop.
War is sometimes necessary, or benficial for those in control of the situation. War offers an effective way of solving problems that may otherwise be persistant and costly, if exercised well.

Yes,Europe is seriously deficient in testosterone.Remind me again,when did America join both the World Wars?Wait,were they late?Yes,they were.

As for WWI, we never should have entered that one. As for WWII, two (hyphenated) words for you, mate: Lend-Lease.

Those are some VERY bad idols to have.

Your opinion.

I take it the hostile alien ideology is Islam?

You have a firm grip on the obvious.

Bloody fucking hell,some of you just don't stop do you? "OH NO!TEH MOOSLEMS!THEY'RE ISLAMAZIZING US!SHARIA LAW,FUCK YEAH!"
Go play in traffic,seriously.

Denial will not save you. Face the facts. Check out the demographic statistics. Then do something to save your culture and civilization.

As strange as it seems to you,those people you're so intent on killing are humans too.That's right,Muslims are humans too.

Are you asserting that all Moslems are terrorists? How bigoted of you! You must be a racist! :eek:

But,surely the people who have caused those people to start killing others are partly to blame,for provoking them?

In a word, no.

You're attitude was non-existent,you weren't there to fight till 1942.TWO YEARS after the war started.Don't start flaming off that we don't have any balls,or that we have no testosterone,because,newsflash,you simply weren't there to stop Hitler,or anything else.

"Phoney war", anyone?

The fact is, we did enter the war, we did in large part contribute to "stopping Hitler" (and yes, the Russians did a lot too), as well as beating Tojo, and if we hadn't, you probably wouldn't be here now to spout inanities. And yes, I know some of you Euros just hate to be reminded of that fact.

Whatever balls you may once have had, a lot of you have long since lost them. Better make an appointment for a pair of Neuticles.

Not until you got your precious pride hurt by the Japanese.

Premeditated, unprovoked aggression--taking place at the same time as "diplomacy" was being given "time to work"--and 2400 dead constitutes "hurt pride"? I think not. More like a stupid plan by evil men who brought death, destruction and defeat on their nation. And well-deserved it was.

Nah. That would infer that the USA actually has or has had a strategy for winning in Iraq. Hell, they probably don't know what would even constitute as a victory.

The war was a total victory. It's the peace that's killing us!

Are you asserting that all Moslems are terrorists? How bigoted of you! You must be a racist! :eek:


He wasn't and you know it.

You on the other hand, do assert that Muslims are all barbaric inferior subhumans. You ARE a racist, and a bigot, and I guess your only defense is trying the "I know you are but what am I" whenever the subject comes up.

Pretty funny.

Whatever balls you may once have had, a lot of you have long since lost them. Better make an appointment for a pair of Neuticles.


Well, we can't all be pro-fascist forum pundits. Clearly you know most about courage and bravery. We should all admire your immense, sweaty balls.

I like Bush!

Isn't the purpose of an investigation to determine if something wrong was done as opposed to vice versa?

Usually, an investigation begins only when there is sufficient evidence to initiate proceedings. If you can't even provide enough evidence to merit a preliminary hearing, it's next to impossible that anything illegal was really done.

there should have been a 4th option - I don't care he was elected and is fucking up but at least in America you can only serve 2 terms. At least Blair is going in the summer

I call bullshit. If that were the case, then the Dems would not have gotten into office.
Given the particulars at hand, you can yell bullshit all you like, but the facts remain that democracy was compromised in the 2000 election and possibly the 2004 election.

Also, your analogy is not appropriate in that we are discussing the Presidential election, although it may have very well been that a few Congressmen might have lost the election to the same manipulation of voters rights.

The ones who "hate democracy" are the crybabies, whiners, bitchers and losers who have done nothing but complain since the 2000 election, which they lost fair, square and democratically.
I tend to disagree with your claim that the results were "fair, square and democratically" achieved.

1812: "Why can't you see that the policies of Madison are creating more enemies not less?"
1917: "Why can't you see that the policies of Wilson are creating more enemies not less?"
1941: "Why can't you see that the policies of Roosevelt are creating more enemies not less?"
1950: "Why can't you see that the policies of Truman are creating more enemies not less?"
1991: "Why can't you see that the policies of Bush 41 are creating more enemies not less?"

Different verse, same old song.
The only one that I might agree with you there is Bush in 1991 who tossed an anchor to Saddam when he was drowning.

Thank God the Democrats were there to rescue us last November, eh?
The US has a long way to go to heal the damage created by the Busheviks. A very long way.

Many left wingers were hoping the death of Zarqawi was misreported. Many have been salivating for a terrorist victory in Iraq since day one, and continue to do so today. The ideological blinders that they are wearing are so tight that they can't see reality.
Capturing Zarqawi would have been far more beneficial to the US cause, but so many right wingers were creaming their jeans they wouldn't understand that.

Given the particulars at hand, you can yell bullshit all you like, but the facts remain that democracy was compromised in the 2000 election and possibly the 2004 election.

Your opinion and those who did not like the outcome of the 2000 elections. The media did a full recount and it turned out that Bush did indeed win Florida so you can can your outdated, and factually wrong, statements.

Also, your analogy is not appropriate in that we are discussing the Presidential election, although it may have very well been that a few Congressmen might have lost the election to the same manipulation of voters rights.

Maybe but so far, there is no proof of that.

Bush, should he of even been elected president of the U.S?

Well, sure. He makes a great example of how not to do it. More importantly, GOD wanted to show with GWB that it is important to vote. HE has grown tired to smite peoples. GWB stands as a much more poignant lesson.

I take it the hostile alien ideology is Islam?

You have a firm grip on the obvious.

So, New Mitanni, would you like to be a pot or a kettle?

So, New Mitanni, would you like to be a pot or a kettle?

See post 113, then guess.

See post 113, then guess.

Excellent. Pot it is.

Bush, should he of even been elected president of the U.S?

Well, sure. He makes a great example of how not to do it. More importantly, GOD wanted to show with GWB that it is important to vote. HE has grown tired to smite peoples. GWB stands as a much more poignant lesson.

Yes, Bush should have been elected president to make all the people who can't talk, or don't know any grammar feel better.

Your opinion and those who did not like the outcome of the 2000 elections. The media did a full recount and it turned out that Bush did indeed win Florida so you can can your outdated, and factually wrong, statements.
What part of removing legal voters from the electors list do you not understand? You can continue in your belief that your country behaves in a democratic manner. Bush won and Americans lost. Define it any way you want, it still ends up as a stain on your history.

Maybe but so far, there is no proof of that.
I was speculating that the possibility existed. If there were any close races, then yes, the probability increases.

Well we are online, therefore 96% of it will be crticism. Whats the matter, you cannot deteremine fact from fiction without holding someones hand?

You havent covered any ground, you've re-stated major points of the left, some of which are very legitimate. Its laughable you try too put yourself in this position.

As for the resources, I have more than what has been hardened, defined and brought too a scienece, (AKA modern center-left slander)

Expect a tag buddy.
What kind of shmuck are you? All i did was repost an earlier post for posterity. I didn't "re-state" anything. Have a laugh at your own expense, wiki-wench, since it'd be humiliating for you if you did almost anything else.

And you're talking smack again about yourself, like i should take your word about what you say you have.
Prove it.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, while you're looking up WIKI as your "solid" "resource", you should punch up this little ditty ... YES, from Wikipedia:


Wikiality

In a July 2006 episode of the satirical comedy The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert announced the neologism wikiality, a portmanteau of the words Wikipedia and reality, for his segment "The Wørd." Colbert defined wikiality as "truth by consensus" (rather than fact), modeled after the approval-by-consensus format of Wikipedia. He ironically praised Wikipedia for following his philosophy of truthiness, in which intuition and consensus is a better reflection of reality than fact:

“
You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... If only the entire body of human knowledge worked this way. And it can, thanks to tonight's word: Wikiality. Now, folks, I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias. I've said it before. Who is Britannica to tell me that George Washington had slaves? If I want to say he didn't, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact.

We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge.
([18] and [19])


”

According to Colbert, together "we can all create a reality that we all can agree on; the reality that we just agreed on." During the segment, he joked "I love Wikipedia... any site that's got a longer entry on truthiness than on Lutherans has its priorities straight." Colbert also used the segment to satirize the more general issue of whether the repetition of statements in the media leads people to believe they are true. The piece was introduced with the tagline, "The Revolution Will Not Be Verified," referencing the lack of objective verification seen in some articles.

Colbert suggested that viewers change the elephant page to state that the number of African elephants has tripled in the last six months. The suggestion resulted in vandalism of Wikipedia articles related to elephants and Africa.[1] Wikipedia administrators subsequently restricted edits to the pages by anonymous and newly created users.

Colbert went on to type on a laptop facing away from the camera, claiming to be making the edits to the pages himself. In addition, initial edits to Wikipedia corresponding to these claimed "facts" were made by a user named StephenColbert. Thus, many believe Colbert himself vandalized several Wikipedia pages at the time he was encouraging other users to do the same. Regardless, the user, whether it was Stephen Colbert himself or someone posing as him, has been blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely.[20] This user was not blocked for vandalism, joking, or 'poking fun at Wikipedia', but because the user violated Wikipedia's username policies, which state that using the names of celebrities as login names is inappropriate. The account will be reopened if and when Colbert or Comedy Central confirm its identity.[2]

Global Language Monitor, which tracks trends in languages, named wikiality and truthiness the top T.V. buzzwords for 2006.[21][22]

Shortly after the episode aired, a fan-created Wikipedia parody site opened at Wikiality.com, inspired by the term. On October 19, 2006, the term was mentioned again on the show, this time with Wikiality.com given as the url for Wikipedia.

hugs and kisses

What kind of shmuck are you? All i did was repost an earlier post for posterity. I didn't "re-state" anything. Have a laugh at your own expense, wiki-wench, since it'd be humiliating for you if you did almost anything else.

And you're talking smack again about yourself, like i should take your word about what you say you have.
Prove it.

Actually you've done a fair job at humiliating yourself mate. ;)

Im talking smack about myself? How so? Are your parents borther and sister? :confused:

Edit:

As long as the consensus comes from credible, sensible debate, other than some retard flying off the handle on NS, im ok with it.

Actually you've done a fair job at humiliating yourself mate. ;)

Im talking smack about myself? How so? Are your parents borther and sister? :confused:
I see a complete and utter qualification of your ... erm, unique point of view, what with the attack on heritage and substantiation of your first line.

Good comeback. Keep up the integrity of your party.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the new generation of Bush Fellators has too offer. I'm optimistic. :D


EDIT: So how the hell would you know who's retarded here and who isn't? Who does or doesn't agree with you?
You been on forums much before this?

I see a complete and utter qualification of your ... erm, unique point of view, what with the attack on heritage and substantiation of your first line.

Good comeback. Keep up the integrity of your party.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the new generation of Bush Fellators has too offer. I'm optimistic. :D


EDIT: So how the hell would you know who's retarded here and who isn't? Who does or doesn't agree with you?
You been on forums much before this?

Who says im a republican? I dont assume you a democrat...

Nice erm...taking my quote. Im glad your optimistic, seeing as your coming from a weakening sub-culture as it was.

I rarely assume people are retarded. 99.9% of the people that disagree with me arent retarded. You are mildly retarded.

Who says im a republican? I dont assume you a democrat...You assumed you knew anything about my familial situation. There's a strike.


Nice erm...taking my quote. Im glad your optimistic, seeing as your coming from a weakening sub-culture as it was. The one that kicked the republicans out of the house AND senate? Is that the one you are assuming i'm a part of? That so-called weakening (perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word) sub-culture? The one you "see" me coming from? :rolleyes:


I rarely assume people are retarded. 99.9% of the people that disagree with me arent retarded. You are mildly retarded.In the sense, perhaps of attempting to turn an unrefined swine to an exemplary tenor, perhaps.

Perhaps not. You still have done a terrible, TERRIBLE job as someone trying to come across as serious AND educated about what you say. :)

Who says im a republican? I dont assume you a democrat...

Nice erm...taking my quote. Im glad your optimistic, seeing as your coming from a weakening sub-culture as it was.

Oh good lord, you are such an idiot.

I rarely assume people are retarded. 99.9% of the people that disagree with me arent retarded. You are mildly retarded.

You too, New Ausha? So what will you be, a pot or a kettle?

Pacifist Womble:

C _ r _ _ l _ u
Oh, that'd be AWESOME!
I miss C_r__ !!
*sniff*

He would've freaked and hid after 9/11.

Kinda like Bush did when Air Force One removed itself from radio contact for ... at least 7 hours.
And then blamed it on some kind of "communications malfunction".

C_r__, eh?
Hmmm.
I stuck up for him once.

With a Democratic congress, that's not going to be a concern. He's handcuffed on any major party-line issues for the next two years; most of the stuff will be bipartisan or heavily watered down Democratic proposals.Signing statements.
:(

Which is pure BS.

No it isn't, and you know it Corny.
We've been through this before.
Cue: Katherine Harris

The war was a total victory. It's the peace that's killing us!

:D

...Mission Accomplished.

The point is fair. Post it here.
Thank you.
*bows*

Oh good lord, you are such an idiot.


:D
Thank you.

*bows*

:D
Thank you.

*bows*

:fluffle:

You assumed you knew anything about my familial situation. There's a strike.
The one that kicked the republicans out of the house AND senate? Is that the one you are assuming i'm a part of? That so-called weakening (perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word) sub-culture? The one you "see" me coming from? :rolleyes:

In the sense, perhaps of attempting to turn an unrefined swine to an exemplary tenor, perhaps.

Perhaps not. You still have done a terrible, TERRIBLE job as someone trying to come across as serious AND educated about what you say. :)

I asked about your family situation. I am now confirmed in my intrigue, thank you.

Yes, your from the weakening anti-conservative movement. Sure it'll ride into a democratic president in 2008, but just like the Conservative Revolution of 1994, is set too crumble.

How have I done a terrible job? Ive done no worse than too make you write in Caps when not necessary.

Oh good lord, you are such an idiot.

...See I thought the idiot was the guy who randomly blurts it without reason...my bad.


You too, New Ausha? So what will you be, a pot or a kettle?

...See I thought the idiot was the guy who randomly blurts it without reason...my bad.

=/

:fluffle:

Enjoying yourselves gentlmen?

:D

...Mission Accomplished.

Yep. It was... foreign army destroyed, capital taken, dictator captured...

Unfortunatley, the peace is killing us. The planning for what to do AFTER the war was as non-existant with what a dog would do with a car if it every actually caught one. :(

Oh, that'd be AWESOME!
I miss C_r__ !!
*sniff*
Corneliu is the answer when you fill in the blanks. :D

Hi there Corneliu!

You seem to have become a lot more politically moderate. You were once ultra right wing, but you have changed for the better. Once you get over your lingering partisanship you'll be ready to debate properly.
Lingering or latent partisanship?


Iraq is not connected to the war on terrorism.
The understatement of the decade.

What part of removing legal voters from the electors list do you not understand? You can continue in your belief that your country behaves in a democratic manner. Bush won and Americans lost. Define it any way you want, it still ends up as a stain on your history.

What part of history is escaping you? Name me one election in which something like that never happened. This has been going on for years dude. It is not just limited to 2000.

I was speculating that the possibility existed. If there were any close races, then yes, the probability increases.

And I technically agreed with you.

Kinda like Bush did when Air Force One removed itself from radio contact for ... at least 7 hours.
And then blamed it on some kind of "communications malfunction".

1) I want to see proof of that and 2) Radio silence is standard MO if they feel that the President's life is in danger.

In England we send people who support our party extra ballot papers. It's a much more inclusive form of fraud than preventing people from voting. I personally am rather proud of it.

What part of history is escaping you? Name me one election in which something like that never happened. This has been going on for years dude. It is not just limited to 2000.
I can't think of any. Perhaps you can provide examples to back your claim?

Even if you can find other examples, it does not validate your claim that Bush won the election fair and square. :eek:

You guys just don't get it. He wasn't elected by some conspiracy. He got the most electoral votes, thus he won. End of story.

Now that statement was completely disrespectful and you should be ashamed of yourself. Let's see you run the most influential nation in the world.

I can't think of any. Perhaps you can provide examples to back your claim?

Election fraud has been going on for longer than we both have been alive. Do I honestly have to prove election fraud to you from past elections? I can point to several right here! First off, let us look at the Kennedy/Nixon election of 1960 and the whole Chicago mess. That's a good one. Let us look at some of the earlier ones too. Like the one that tossed the elections into the House of Representatives in the 1800s? I'll have the exact year for ya as soon as I look it up or whenever I get back from going out with my gf.

Even if you can find other examples, it does not validate your claim that Bush won the election fair and square. :eek:

Tell that to the media. They recounted the damn ballots and proved that Bush did indeed won Florida free and clear. Grow up.

I'm done in this thread for awhile.

You guys just don't get it. He wasn't elected by some conspiracy. He got the most electoral votes, thus he won. End of story.

Yes he did and did it fairly too. Was their fraud? Some yes. Will not deny it. Then again, both sides were doing it so to blame one party because they won is just plain flat out stupid.

You guys just don't get it. He wasn't elected by some conspiracy. He got the most electoral votes, thus he won. End of story.
He got the critical electoral votes from the State of Florida, which had tens of thousands of eligible voters purged from the electors list by Katherine Harris who was also Chairperson of the Bush campaign in Florida. Nope, no conspiracy here. Move along now. :p

He got the critical electoral votes from the State of Florida, which had tens of thousands of eligible voters purged from the electors list by Katherine Harris who was also Chairperson of the Bush campaign in Florida. Nope, no conspiracy here. Move along now. :p

And if Gore had won his home state (wasn't he like the first presidential candidate to do so?) we would not be having this discussion would we? Not Bush's fault that those in Dade county and other democratic counties could not read a ballot that was created by Democrats and was in the papers as well.

And if Gore had won his home state (wasn't he like the first presidential candidate to do so?) we would not be having this discussion would we? Not Bush's fault that those in Dade county and other democratic counties could not read a ballot that was created by Democrats and was in the papers as well.

I think the 2000 election was lost by the Democrats because the DNC wouldn't let Clinton campaign. Say what you like about the man, he's a great campaigner, he knows how to fire up a crowd. Had they used the outgoing President on Gore's behalf, this thread wouldn't exist.

And if Gore had won his home state (wasn't he like the first presidential candidate to do so?) we would not be having this discussion would we? Not Bush's fault that those in Dade county and other democratic counties could not read a ballot that was created by Democrats and was in the papers as well.
Now you are going to blame the voters? Katherine Harris is responsible for removing tens of thousands of names from the electors list. She should be in jail. Bush should be running another business into the ground and not the US.

Now you are going to blame the voters? Katherine Harris is responsible for removing tens of thousands of names from the electors list. She should be in jail. Bush should be running another business into the ground and not the US.

In this case, yes it is the voters fault. Think about it. If there was not a major number of over votes for President done in several counties, Gore would be president today. Also, if the media had not called Florida before all the polling stations closed in said state, who knows what would have happened. There is more to this than just the voting lists CH. High time you get your head out of your ass and look at the big picture instead of a small part of it.

I think the 2000 election was lost by the Democrats because the DNC wouldn't let Clinton campaign. Say what you like about the man, he's a great campaigner, he knows how to fire up a crowd. Had they used the outgoing President on Gore's behalf, this thread wouldn't exist.

I actually agree with what you say Farnhamia.

I think the 2000 election was lost by the Democrats because the DNC wouldn't let Clinton campaign. Say what you like about the man, he's a great campaigner, he knows how to fire up a crowd. Had they used the outgoing President on Gore's behalf, this thread wouldn't exist.
That is a tough call to make. Although Clinton was an excellent orator, he was too close to the impeachment hearings, and could have severely damaged the Democratic campaign.

In this case, yes it is the voters fault. Think about it. If there was not a major number of over votes for President done in several counties, Gore would be president today. Also, if the media had not called Florida before all the polling stations closed in said state, who knows what would have happened. There is more to this than just the voting lists CH. High time you get your head out of your ass and look at the big picture instead of a small part of it.
If anyone has his head inside their rectum, that would be you. Katherine Harris cheated America, and the (48.4%) 51,003,926 Americans who voted for Al Gore, versus the (47.9%) 50,460,110 who voted for George Bush.

And if Gore had won his home state (wasn't he like the first presidential candidate to do so?) we would not be having this discussion would we? Not Bush's fault that those in Dade county and other democratic counties could not read a ballot that was created by Democrats and was in the papers as well.

As a former resident of Palm Beach County, Florida who voted in the 1992 election in that county (for Bush 41, of course), I can state from personal knowledge that the dreaded "butterfly ballot" was simple to use if you had an IQ above room temperature and checked your votes before you dropped it into the ballot box. If some voters were too stupid or too negligent to know what they were doing, then they have no basis for complaint.

But being a Democrat means never having to say "I'm responsible."

What does what a President does AFTER being elected have to do with DESERVING to be President?

I don't see any mention of that in the Constitution.

If anyone has his head inside their rectum, that would be you. Katherine Harris cheated America, and the (48.4%) 51,003,926 Americans who voted for Al Gore, versus the (47.9%) 50,460,110 who voted for George Bush.

Get this through your thick head, CH: electoral votes, not popular votes, determine who becomes President.

The only ones who tried to "cheat America" were the Democrat partisans on the Florida Supreme Court who ignored state law in their desperate attempt to throw the election to Gore until the U.S. Supreme Court slapped them down.

BTW: since you're so concerned about us Americans, why don't you move down here and become one? We'd just love to have you :D

...See I thought the idiot was the guy who randomly blurts it without reason...my bad.

=/

I take it you'll be "pot", then?

Enjoying yourselves gentlmen?

:)

As a former resident of Palm Beach County, Florida who voted in the 1992 election in that county (for Bush 41, of course), I can state from personal knowledge that the dreaded "butterfly ballot" was simple to use if you had an IQ above room temperature and checked your votes before you dropped it into the ballot box. If some voters were too stupid or too negligent to know what they were doing, then they have no basis for complaint.

But being a neocon means never having to say "I'm responsible."

Fixed. :)

BTW: since you're so concerned about us Americans, why don't you move down here and become one? We'd just love to have you :D

Oh, I agree. You're welcome in the states anytime, CH. Especially as you realize that good freunden like New Mitanni here are in a definite minority.

nope

Oh, I agree. You're welcome in the states anytime, CH. Especially as you realize that good freunden like New Mitanni here are in a definite minority.

Really?

I voted for him, yes. But I am pissed off about his recent choices, such as failing to take harder action on Iran, failing to secure the border, not cleaning out Gitmo for new arrivals...

But I voted for him, I want him in the White house 'till someone else is elected.

I vote, despite being liberal, that it was a good thing that he got elected. Now that the nation has seen what having an ultra-right-wing religious nut psycho bloodthirsty blue-blood can do with a Republican congress and senate, they should know better.

I take it you'll be "pot", then?

Erm....:confused:

Erm....:confused:

The pot calling the kettle black. In otherwords, being a hypocrite.

A si Cubano! No Bush!!! El es un Dictator!

The pot calling the kettle black. In otherwords, being a hypocrite.

Ah.

Corneliu is the answer when you fill in the blanks. :D
Like in every situation!
He's like the all-purpose wood glue or caulk.

Say it with me ...

Corneliu is one big heaping hunk of caulk!

I asked about your family situation. I am now confirmed in my intrigue, thank you.
Good thing you answered yourself there, since again there wasn't anything but strike to go with. I bet you're as vindicated in your existence when you get mail addressed to "occupant" ... that's Mr. Occupant to all of us.


Yes, your from the weakening anti-conservative movement. Sure it'll ride into a democratic president in 2008, but just like the Conservative Revolution of 1994, is set too crumble. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Whatever small amount of amusement you might provide to "The Ringer" fan-mindset, it's really too sophomoric for the topic you're choosing so poorly to "argue" :rolleyes: about.



How have I done a terrible job?
You'll, never, EVER know, lamentably enough. No surprise you're backing Bush, even in such an inane and juvenile fashion.

Ive done no worse than too make you write in Caps when not necessary.A guy who can't spell is here to give lessons? Rich.
Pathetic.
Seriously, take up some other hobby, like tetherless rock-climbing or pie eating or philately. It's less humiliating to everyone involved, and you might even serve a valuable social function of some sort, one you sorely lack.

Like in every situation!
He's like the all-purpose wood glue or caulk.

Say it with me ...

Corneliu is one big heaping hunk of caulk!
Oh ... did i mention "steaming" ?

Yep. It was... foreign army destroyed, capital taken, dictator captured...

Unfortunatley, the peace is killing us. The planning for what to do AFTER the war was as non-existant with what a dog would do with a car if it every actually caught one. :(

You really know how to cut it on your own joke.
Come in again, you've pretty much soiled the atmosphere.
*shakes head*

I'm done in this thread for awhile.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12137207&postcount=174

Oh, I agree. You're welcome in the states anytime, CH. Especially as you realize that good freunden like New Mitanni here are in a definite minority.

But ... but ... that expert New uhsAa (sorry, i can't spell either) SAID ... SAID that ... someone ELSE is in the minority!
I swear!
Someone!
Else!

The pot calling the kettle black. In otherwords, being a hypocrite.

No, don't explain it!
Let s/he learn on his/her/its own!
Don't get involved! ;)

He won, he's doing a good job.

So yes, he should be president.

He won, he's doing a good job.

So yes, he should be president.

Hey, don't you have weasels to attend to?
Or some self-cutting? ;)

Hey, don't you have weasels to attend to?
Or some self-cutting? ;)

http://www.chins-n-quills.com/forums/images/smilies/weasel.gif + http://www.theoldergamers.com/forum/images/smilies/bigsad.gif = http://totalmotorcycle.com/BBS/images/smiles/smilie_flag_USA.gif

http://www.chins-n-quills.com/forums/images/smilies/weasel.gif
Oh yeah! Weasel smilie!!
WooT!

Good thing you answered yourself there, since again there wasn't anything but strike to go with. I bet you're as vindicated in your existence when you get mail addressed to "occupant" ... that's Mr. Occupant to all of us.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Whatever small amount of amusement you might provide to "The Ringer" fan-mindset, it's really too sophomoric for the topic you're choosing so poorly to "argue" :rolleyes: about.



You'll, never, EVER know, lamentably enough. No surprise you're backing Bush, even in such an inane and juvenile fashion.

I'm backing Bush because its the same crowd and same criticism, from which you are a thorough bred. Inane and Juvenile by your definition? I trust this includes anyone who has ever dared disagree with you.

A guy who can't spell is here to give lessons? Rich.
Pathetic.
Seriously, take up some other hobby, like tetherless rock-climbing or pie eating or philately. It's less humiliating to everyone involved, and you might even serve a valuable social function of some sort, one you sorely lack

My spelling has been fine, thank you. For you I'd recommend nude paint ball or teaching the mentally handicapped. I'm sure they would suffice as too please your incessant and ignorant criticism, which you probably get off to...

Well by the sheer fact that he was even elected as president twice must mean that the majority thought he was worthy to be President.

I'm backing Bush because its the same crowd and same criticism, from which you are a thorough bred. Inane and Juvenile by your definition? I trust this includes anyone who has ever dared disagree with you.

My spelling has been fine, thank you. For you I'd recommend nude paint ball or teaching the mentally handicapped. I'm sure they would suffice as too please your incessant and ignorant criticism, which you probably get off to...

One word: Hypocrite.

Corneliu is one big heaping hunk of caulk!

:rolleyes:

Well by the sheer fact that he was even elected as president twice must mean that the majority thought he was worthy to be President.

Hear Hear!

Well by the sheer fact that he was even elected as president twice must mean that the majority thought he was worthy to be President.

Ahh, but the problem is that he did not win by majority – at least not in 2000.
That is the weird thing with the American system. In 2000, Al Gore won the majority of the popular vote – but he still lost. How you Americans can live with a system like that is beyond me…

Anyway, as it stand Bush won both times thanks to the Electoral votes. And like him or not, that’s the end of it…

You really know how to cut it on your own joke.
Come in again, you've pretty much soiled the atmosphere.
*shakes head*

Nah. I just actually have an opinion that differs from yours. Those do exist.
*Nods and walks out*

Ahh, but the problem is that he did not win by majority – at least not in 2000.
That is the weird thing with the American system. In 2000, Al Gore won the majority of the popular vote – but he still lost. How you Americans can live with a system like that is beyond me…

Anyway, as it stand Bush won both times thanks to the Electoral votes. And like him or not, that’s the end of it…

Because our nation is so large that direct representation fails miserably. To put it in perseptive: the UK is about the same size as Oregon. France is two Scotlands smaller than Texas, etc.

Europe has states, so does the US. The same reason why you don't want to be run from Brussels is the same reason why the US doesn't embrace a direct representation. The less populated states get screwed. The UK would never accept that the French and Germans both would have more a say than they would in the EU for example. Why should Oregon?

The system is set up to limit domination of any one part of the country.
If we did have it, we'd have an NFLocracy -- one could win by just campaigning in the cities that have football teams.

Nah. I just actually have an opinion that differs from yours. Those do exist.
*Nods and walks out*

Hahaha!!!!


That's the kind of humor in the face of adversity that keeps America strong!

Good thing you answered yourself there, since again there wasn't anything but strike to go with. I bet you're as vindicated in your existence when you get mail addressed to "occupant" ... that's Mr. Occupant to all of us.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Whatever small amount of amusement you might provide to "The Ringer" fan-mindset, it's really too sophomoric for the topic you're choosing so poorly to "argue" :rolleyes: about.



You'll, never, EVER know, lamentably enough. No surprise you're backing Bush, even in such an inane and juvenile fashion.
Is this really worth quoting this many times? ;)


Inane and Juvenile by your definition? I trust this includes anyone who has ever dared disagree with you. Not necessarily ... but as we've established, you're a .... special ... case. :)


A guy who can't spell is here to give lessons? Rich.
Pathetic.
Seriously, take up some other hobby, like tetherless rock-climbing or pie eating or philately. It's less humiliating to everyone involved, and you might even serve a valuable social function of some sort, one you sorely lack.

My spelling has been fine, thank you.
Error.
For you I'd recommend nude paint ball
Are you coming on to me?
I'm not hearing a no .... :)
I'm sure they would suffice as too please your incessant and ignorant criticism, which you probably get off to...Praise from Caesar!!

Because our nation is so large that direct representation fails miserably. To put it in perseptive: the UK is about the same size as Oregon. France is two Scotlands smaller than Texas, etc.

Europe has states, so does the US. The same reason why you don't want to be run from Brussels is the same reason why the US doesn't embrace a direct representation. The less populated states get screwed. The UK would never accept that the French and Germans both would have more a say than they would in the EU for example. Why should Oregon?

The system is set up to limit domination of any one part of the country.
If we did have it, we'd have an NFLocracy -- one could win by just campaigning in the cities that have football teams.

Well said.

:rolleyes:

I know you're using those purty lips to whisper it over and over again.

I sure am.
:)

Because our nation is so large that direct representation fails miserably. To put it in perseptive: the UK is about the same size as Oregon. France is two Scotlands smaller than Texas, etc.

Europe has states, so does the US. The same reason why you don't want to be run from Brussels is the same reason why the US doesn't embrace a direct representation. The less populated states get screwed. The UK would never accept that the French and Germans both would have more a say than they would in the EU for example. Why should Oregon?

The system is set up to limit domination of any one part of the country.
If we did have it, we'd have an NFLocracy -- one could win by just campaigning in the cities that have football teams.

No - I think the reason the UK doesn't want to be 'run from Brussels', is that Europe is not one 'nation'. The US is. The northern aggressors took war to the south to make it so.

There is no reason why the US should not use direct representation - your argument that the 'less populated states get screwed' is deceptive, at best. By allowing a state any set number of electoral votes, regardless of population, you actually tip the balance in favour of the smaller state.

The 'democratic' thing to do, would be to make one person voting equate to one vote cast.

But then, the US has never embraced that whole 'democracy' idea.

No - I think the reason the UK doesn't want to be 'run from Brussels', is that Europe is not one 'nation'. The US is. The northern aggressors took war to the south to make it so.

There is no reason why the US should not use direct representation - your argument that the 'less populated states get screwed' is deceptive, at best. By allowing a state any set number of electoral votes, regardless of population, you actually tip the balance in favour of the smaller state.

The 'democratic' thing to do, would be to make one person voting equate to one vote cast.

But then, the US has never embraced that whole 'democracy' idea.

Grave!! :)
*bows*

As the democracy idea goes ... it only got as far as the republic.

Grave!! :)
*bows*

As the democracy idea goes ... it only got as far as the republic.

Greetings, my friend. :)

I seem to recall the choice was deliberately made to avoid a 'democracy', also. I can't be too surprised at how conservative American politics is, when it is so heavily reminiscent of the historical British 'fat Tory landowner' model.

I'm still not sure why it is 'bad' to give the smaller states little (or even no) representation... Wyoming is a big place, it is hardly my fault if not enough people live there to have any impact. Why should they be given 'bonus' political capital, just because Wyoming sucks so bad no one wants to go there?

Greetings, my friend. :)

I seem to recall the choice was deliberately made to avoid a 'democracy', also. I can't be too surprised at how conservative American politics is, when it is so heavily reminiscent of the historical British 'fat Tory landowner' model.

I'm still not sure why it is 'bad' to give the smaller states little (or even no) representation... Wyoming is a big place, it is hardly my fault if not enough people live there to have any impact. Why should they be given 'bonus' political capital, just because Wyoming sucks so bad no one wants to go there?
Cheney's state. Nuff said.
:(
Yeah, there's other reasons, but that suffices.

Cheney's state. Nuff said.
:(
Yeah, there's other reasons, but that suffices.

I hadn't even thought of that... shouldn't the process be to remove votes from the state, then? Like - Wyoming now has -1 Electoral Votes...

Grave, in view of this post and your posts in the Hiroshima thread, I have to ask: are you now or have you ever been in grad school?

I think the reason the UK doesn't want to be 'run from Brussels', is that Europe is not one 'nation'. The US is.

The US is now, but the United States were not that "nation" at the time the Constitution, including its provision for the Electoral College, was adopted. There was no such nation. There were only thirteen separate colonies which had previously adopted the Articles of Confederation, a weak system that wasn't working and did not produce a "nation" as you imagine the US is now.

The Constitution was not intended to produce such a "nation" either, but to create a federal system in which states' individual interests were protected. In order to convince all of the colonies, including the smaller ones, to ratify the Constitution, specific provisions were adopted to protect the interests of the individual states. One of these provisions was the Senate, which specifically intended to give each state, regardless of population, the same two votes as any other state. Another was the Electoral College, which reflects the federal nature of the Constitutional system and, more importantly IMO, inhibits a few large states, or worse, a few large cities in some states, from dominating Presidential elections.

The US Constitution, in short, was never intended to establish a pure democracy. A number of interests had to be balanced, and the result was a federal system with a republican form of government.

The northern aggressors took war to the south to make it so.

Wrong again. Once the Constitution was adopted, the United States came into existence and was in fact one "nation." The question of whether states could leave the Union once they joined was one of the issues settled by the Civil War. For better or worse, the South lost, and the question was answered: once you're in, you stay in. They may still be fighting the Civil War in Oconee County, Georgia or other remote Southern enclaves, but that's the way it is.

There is no reason why the US should not use direct representation - your argument that the 'less populated states get screwed' is deceptive, at best. By allowing a state any set number of electoral votes, regardless of population, you actually tip the balance in favour of the smaller state.

See the above. The argument is not only not "deceptive", it is grounded in history. The Electoral College helps ensure that Presidential elections address the interests of as many states as possible. States, not just individual voters.

The 'democratic' thing to do, would be to make one person voting equate to one vote cast.

But then, the US has never embraced that whole 'democracy' idea.

At last, an accurate statement. The US is not a "democracy", it is a republic under a Constitution that establishes a federal system.

Repeat: a federal republic.

It's worked for 230 years. It's not likely to change. Get used to it.

At last, an accurate statement. The US is not a "democracy", it is a republic under a Constitution that establishes a federal system.

Repeat: a federal republic.

What's the difference?

What's the difference?

The majority only have so much say on how its run, not complete say.

So the UK, for example, is a democracy - even though it is a consitutional monarchy as well - because a simple majority of elected representatives (MPs) can change the law any way they want.

The US is a republic with democratic forms, because the elected representatives are not free to do whatever their consituents want, but are rather limited by the consitution.

The consitution can be changed, of course, but it requires a lot more than a simple majority: indeed, a super majority of voters is not enough, it also requires the correct geographic distribution of said voters.

See the above. The argument is not only not "deceptive", it is grounded in history. The Electoral College helps ensure that Presidential elections address the interests of as many states as possible. States, not just individual voters.


I don’t understand this argument. If you really wanted all states to matter, then why are there some states that has but a few electoral votes while there are a few with over thirty?
Think about it. As a candidate, would you rather campaign in a state that gives you 34 votes, or would you campaign in a state that only gives you 3? By using Electoral Votes, the emphasis is massively tilted towards the big states.

Also, why should one vote be worth more than another just because the person who voted lives in a particular place? When using the one-man-one-vote system, the location of the voters wouldn’t matter since they all have an equal say in the election.


At last, an accurate statement. The US is not a "democracy", it is a republic under a Constitution that establishes a federal system.

Repeat: a federal republic.

It's worked for 230 years. It's not likely to change. Get used to it.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic, that the nation that continually boasts about freedom and democracy is not a democracy itself?

I don’t understand this argument. If you really wanted all states to matter, then why are there some states that has but a few electoral votes while there are a few with over thirty?
Think about it. As a candidate, would you rather campaign in a state that gives you 34 votes, or would you campaign in a state that only gives you 3? By using Electoral Votes, the emphasis is massively tilted towards the big states.

Also, why should one vote be worth more than another just because the person who voted lives in a particular place? When using the one-man-one-vote system, the location of the voters wouldn’t matter since they all have an equal say in the election.



Am I the only one who finds it ironic, that the nation that continually boasts about freedom and democracy is not a democracy itself?

First, the system is weighted so that by population, certain smaller states actually have more pull per person than large states... just that they go after the big states...

Secondly, where in the world did you ever get that this country was founded as a "Democracy"??? Government School, I'll bet... we are a Constitutional Republic. That means we are represented by those who we elect.

BTW, what do you think of repealing the 17th Amendment? I think it's a GREAT idea. (I'll bet anything you are running to look it up instead of knowing what it is...but that you'll never admit it...)


FWIW, I am amazed that the infotainment/media complex has had as hard a time bringing Bush down as they have. They have hammered on him since well before he was elected... and now they are finally getting some traction on him... Frankly, he's as good as many of our former Presidents, and better than some. Carter comes to mind... Or his father...

Oh, yeah, and for all you Gore lovers out there.... by ANY measure, (even the ways that Gore wanted to NOT count the military absentee ballots... talk about vote suppression...) in Florida in 2000, Bush still won. Deal with it. (that was a democratic party sponsored study, btw) So shut up about it already.

And no, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but I did in 04.

I have to keep some secrets. I will do my best to answer them when I have the time. Today though is Christmas Day and tomorrow I leave for Philly to be with my GF. So I will not be around much in the next several days.
Cool. I didn't think that was Christmas day! Never mind, have fun.

Use your brains ,... by all rights he should invade Iran.
Then you will surely feel a tinge of regret and say something like "Iran economically and enviromentally was better under the rule of azerbaijan".

First, the system is weighted so that by population, certain smaller states actually have more pull per person than large states... just that they go after the big states...

Secondly, where in the world did you ever get that this country was founded as a "Democracy"??? Government School, I'll bet... we are a Constitutional Republic. That means we are represented by those who we elect.

BTW, what do you think of repealing the 17th Amendment? I think it's a GREAT idea. (I'll bet anything you are running to look it up instead of knowing what it is...but that you'll never admit it...)


FWIW, I am amazed that the infotainment/media complex has had as hard a time bringing Bush down as they have. They have hammered on him since well before he was elected... and now they are finally getting some traction on him... Frankly, he's as good as many of our former Presidents, and better than some. Carter comes to mind... Or his father...

Oh, yeah, and for all you Gore lovers out there.... by ANY measure, (even the ways that Gore wanted to NOT count the military absentee ballots... talk about vote suppression...) in Florida in 2000, Bush still won. Deal with it. (that was a democratic party sponsored study, btw) So shut up about it already.

And no, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but I did in 04.


I never once in my life believed that US was a democracy – quite the contrary.

As for the 17th Amendment (yes, I did have to look it up – we’re not taught the Amendments of the American Constitution in Danish schools you know), I fail to see why it should be repealed. As I understand it, it simply states that the people of a given state elect their own Senators. What’s wrong with that?

Finally, I never said that Bush did not win. I was merely puzzled that a candidate who did not get the majority of the votes could still win the election…

Amazing how many references to "testosterone" emanate from a continent that is seriously deficient in that hormone.
It doesn't matter how much testosterone Europeans have (I have no reason to believe we're deficient in that regard). The fact that you think it's a suitable base for foreign policy is what I'm criticising.

LOL. My "idols" include Ronald Reagan, George S. Patton and Douglas MacArthur. Also Charles Martel and Pope Urban II.
Sorry, your prefered military tactics led me to to assume Stalin.

(Out of curiosity, why Urban II? I've never heard anyone say that before)

I don't know which comment to laugh at more, this one or the preceding one. "You in Europe" threatening to land anywhere when you don't have the guts to stop the invasion of your own continent by a hostile alien ideology
There is no invasion of Europe going on. If we thought there was, we would have no problem expelling every Muslim. But this thread is not the time or place.

not to mention the balls (literally as well as figuratively) to reproduce yourselves to the extent necessary to prevent your own populations from crashing, is too funny for words.
We would if we wanted to. But there is no need to because there are already too many people in the world.

And on top of that, you threaten to invade CANADA because you're peeved at the US!
At that stage Canada would no doubt be a part of the US, captain obvious.

My "respect for human life" includes protecting innocent people by exterminating those like Zarqawi, UBL, the Taliban, and every roadside bomber in Iraq. Throw in the moolah-cracy in Iran for good measure.
You speak of these innocent people, yet your preferred policies kill more of them than the above list of scum ever could.

You have no respect for innocent life.

And I've got news for you, pal: war is about breaking things and killing people. In war, people die.
That's a pretty good reason not to go to war. War is usually a choice, especially when the front is thousands of miles from your border.

If "innocent people" are dying, the blame lies entirely on the guilty people who are hiding among them and using them for cover.
Bullshit. If America hadn't invaded Iraq none of that shit would be happening at all.

Fortunately for the world, your attitude didn't prevail in the 1940's when "a thousand innocent" Germans and Japanese were killed for every storm trooper and concentration camp commandant.
Different times, different war mate. We're fighting terrorists not governments now.

T1812: "Why can't you see that the policies of Madison are creating more enemies not less?"
1917: "Why can't you see that the policies of Wilson are creating more enemies not less?"
1941: "Why can't you see that the policies of Roosevelt are creating more enemies not less?"
1950: "Why can't you see that the policies of Truman are creating more enemies not less?"
1991: "Why can't you see that the policies of Bush 41 are creating more enemies not less?"

Different verse, same old song.
Sources?

All those wars were against states, not terrorist groups.

And your point is?
That you are extreme (that is, unless America is a fascist state, which it isn't yet.)

Many left wingers were hoping the death of Zarqawi was misreported. Many have been salivating for a terrorist victory in Iraq since day one, and continue to do so today. The ideological blinders that they are wearing are so tight that they can't see reality.
More proof of your bullshit. Nobody wants a terrorist victory. Unlike you, we care about the minimum possible number of innocent people being killed. But facts are on our side. More people have been getting killed since Zarqawi was killed. The proof that leftists want a terrorist victory in Iraq? It's nowhere, because we don't.

I don't care about being "higher" than the enemy, only about defeating and destroying the enemy.
And failing to do so, apparently.

Though your words are indicative of what plagues the American right: a complete and total lack of morals.

With your attitude, you may just get your wish.
And the kingdom of heaven may be his too.

I thought Gore won the 2000 election but was simply ousted. Am I wrong maybe? :(

Usually, an investigation begins only when there is sufficient evidence to initiate proceedings. If you can't even provide enough evidence to merit a preliminary hearing, it's next to impossible that anything illegal was really done.Ah, fair enough.

Well by the sheer fact that he was even elected as president twice must mean that the majority thought he was worthy to be President.Well, he got the majority of electoral votes. So did every other president. Should every other president also have been elected?

The system is set up to limit domination of any one part of the country.
If we did have it, we'd have an NFLocracy -- one could win by just campaigning in the cities that have football teams.I personally don't have a problem with the electoral system, but I do have a problem with the way the electoral votes are distributed. They should be distributed proportionately via the number of votes each candidate gets, with none of the first-past-the-post shit.

By allowing a state any set number of electoral votes, regardless of population, you actually tip the balance in favour of the smaller state.That's the point, otherwise you end up with an NFLocracy, as Markreich described. (Actually, it's still bad, but not as bad as it would be otherwise.)

Wrong again. Once the Constitution was adopted, the United States came into existence and was in fact one "nation." The question of whether states could leave the Union once they joined was one of the issues settled by the Civil War. For better or worse, the South lost, and the question was answered: once you're in, you stay in. They may still be fighting the Civil War in Oconee County, Georgia or other remote Southern enclaves, but that's the way it is.Simply because the south lost the war doesn't mean that secession isn't Constitutional; it was never tried Constitutionally. It could be argued that the Civil War was simply an acquisition of territory for the North.I don’t understand this argument. If you really wanted all states to matter, then why are there some states that has but a few electoral votes while there are a few with over thirty?
Think about it. As a candidate, would you rather campaign in a state that gives you 34 votes, or would you campaign in a state that only gives you 3? By using Electoral Votes, the emphasis is massively tilted towards the big states. It would be even worse with simple population-based voting. Why would someone campaign in a state with 800,000 people when they could campaign in a state with 35,000,000 people? The proportions are even worse in this case.

Oh, yeah, and for all you Gore lovers out there.... by ANY measure, (even the ways that Gore wanted to NOT count the military absentee ballots... talk about vote suppression...) in Florida in 2000, Bush still won. Not quite. If you counted the chads so that any dimple on the chads counted as a vote, Gore would have won. Of course, this would be a highly unusual thing to do.

I thought Gore won the 2000 election but was simply ousted. Am I wrong maybe? :(No, he won more popular votes, but not more electoral votes. He was never elected.

Get this through your thick head, CH: electoral votes, not popular votes, determine who becomes President.
You can't get through a debate without trying to insult someone? I am well aware of your severely flawed electoral college. I am even astute enough to know that Florida ended up making the difference in the 2000 election. If Katherine Harris hadn't cheated, then Gore would more than likely have won the Presidency. Harris should be in jail and Bush should be running yet another company into the ground rather then running the US into the ground.

BTW: since you're so concerned about us Americans, why don't you move down here and become one? We'd just love to have you :D
I visit often enough, but I don't think I would like to live there. I am kinda partial to Canada. :D

The US political system is a big tightrope act, balanced between different governmental models. Partly democracy, partly republic, partly one nation, partly a federation of semi-sovereign states, partly dependent on elected leaders, partly committee-run, partly anarchic, etc. I think this is due to the founders' overriding interest in checks and balances, to make sure that it would be impossible/very difficult for any one group to gain effective dominance over all others, functionally, geographically or ideologically. Another thing to remember is that the Constitution contains a lot of compromises that were put in to get the states to ratify it, but which made many in the new Congress unhappy. When you read their papers and correspondence, you see an expectation that many issues -- such as the set up of the Electoral College and distribution of electoral votes -- would be revisited in the future. I'm one of those "Constitution as living document" people, because the US Constitution was written by lawyers to get a certain job done at a certain time under certain circumstances, not by idealogues to set a national identity/philosophy. The writers themselves expected it to be amended, so I see no reason not update it every now and then. In the process of doing that, we determine what kind of a nation we are. At the moment, we're a nation that prefers a frankenstein monster of cobbled together governmental systems, possibly because it is harder to turn such into a dictatorship.

That said, no, Bush should not have been elected, but not because of the very obvious election fraud in Florida. He should not have been elected because he was clearly incompetent. That was obvious from the first words out of his mouth. If Americans had been voting in the real, pragmatic interests of the nation and themselves, neither 2000 nor 2004 would have been as close as they were. But Americans sacrificed the good of the nation in favor of their own personal, issue-driven, ideological agendas that they hoped Bush would promote. He is the president every ideologue and true believer thought they could use. Everybody's puppet. And look where it has gotten us.

I thought Gore won the 2000 election but was simply ousted. Am I wrong maybe? :(

Nope, Gore lost. Had he won Florida (or, hey! how about his OWN state of Tennessee!) he'd have had the Electoral votes. I wouldn't have minded a Gore Presidency quite so much, if only because Lieberman would have been VP, and he's from my own state of Connecticut.

...which has never had a President, and only one partial-term Veep.

I personally don't have a problem with the electoral system, but I do have a problem with the way the electoral votes are distributed. They should be distributed proportionately via the number of votes each candidate gets, with none of the first-past-the-post shit.


I assume you still mean on a per-state basis, but done on a percentage basis?
IE: Connecticut has 7 votes. Bush gets 38% and Kerry gets 58%. Bush gets 2.6 votes and Kerry gets 4 votes, with .4 votes being split amongst the 5 other candidates?

Three problems I see with that:

a) It makes voter fraud (dead people, Diebold errors, etc) a LOT more powerful, since now it takes far smaller number of cheats in more places (and thus harder to detect) to change an election.

b) It futher dilutes the states and brings us closer to NFLocracy. Why bother campaigning in (say) South Carolina, when you'll get a percentage of the votes anyway and only cities matter?

c) It will increase the chance for deadlock. Certainly the last two elections would have been decided by an electoral vote or three. I don't see that as really helping. :)

Grave, in view of this post and your posts in the Hiroshima thread, I have to ask: are you now or have you ever been in grad school?


I don't even know what it is.


The US is now, but the United States were not that "nation" at the time the Constitution, including its provision for the Electoral College, was adopted. There was no such nation. There were only thirteen separate colonies which had previously adopted the Articles of Confederation, a weak system that wasn't working and did not produce a "nation" as you imagine the US is now.


You are missing the point. We don't live 'then'. We live 'now'.


The Constitution was not intended to produce such a "nation" either, but to create a federal system in which states' individual interests were protected. In order to convince all of the colonies, including the smaller ones, to ratify the Constitution, specific provisions were adopted to protect the interests of the individual states. One of these provisions was the Senate, which specifically intended to give each state, regardless of population, the same two votes as any other state. Another was the Electoral College, which reflects the federal nature of the Constitutional system and, more importantly IMO, inhibits a few large states, or worse, a few large cities in some states, from dominating Presidential elections.


So - we have tyranny of the minority, rather than tyranny of the majority?

How is that in any way superior to direct representation?


The US Constitution, in short, was never intended to establish a pure democracy. A number of interests had to be balanced, and the result was a federal system with a republican form of government.


I didn't say the Constitution was intended to establish a pure democracy. Quite the contrary, I have specifically argued that this nation has continually resisted such an idea.


Wrong again. Once the Constitution was adopted, the United States came into existence and was in fact one "nation." The question of whether states could leave the Union once they joined was one of the issues settled by the Civil War. For better or worse, the South lost, and the question was answered: once you're in, you stay in. They may still be fighting the Civil War in Oconee County, Georgia or other remote Southern enclaves, but that's the way it is.


No - not 'wrong again'. Separate colonies or no, the shape of the nation was concrete after the War of Northern Aggression. Indeed, the question of nationhood was argued on those battlefields - since rights to secession were about the only things that might have held a realistic pretense of independence, rather than nationhood, and those 'rights' were contested as the opening shot.


See the above. The argument is not only not "deceptive", it is grounded in history. The Electoral College helps ensure that Presidential elections address the interests of as many states as possible. States, not just individual voters.


Which is not superior to serving voters. Indeed, allocating a disproportionate allowance of power to lesser populated states ensures that Presidential elections favour rural voters, and are likely to resemble the public opinion of the nation only in broad, general (and, let's face it... largely coincidental) strokes.


At last, an accurate statement. The US is not a "democracy", it is a republic under a Constitution that establishes a federal system.

Repeat: a federal republic.

It's worked for 230 years. It's not likely to change. Get used to it.

It might be argued that it hasn't worked for 230 years.

You are right that it is not likely to change... that doesn't make that the best thing for the nation. It just means that the big parties have a lot vested in maintaining a status quo, and the average American voter is stereotypically too apathetic to question that status quo.

That's the point, otherwise you end up with an NFLocracy, as Markreich described. (Actually, it's still bad, but not as bad as it would be otherwise.)


I disagree. By allocating more power to the lesser populated areas, you promote the interests of rural voters over urban voters... of the typically more extreme voters over the typically less extreme voters... and of the typically more insular voters over the typically more inclusive voters.

You also fuel a tyranny of the minority dynamic.

At least a 'tyranny of the majority' can claim to be democratic.

I disagree. By allocating more power to the lesser populated areas, you promote the interests of rural voters over urban voters... of the typically more extreme voters over the typically less extreme voters... and of the typically more insular voters over the typically more inclusive voters.

You also fuel a tyranny of the minority dynamic.

At least a 'tyranny of the majority' can claim to be democratic.

So you're saying that Chicago's interests are always more important than Montana's. If one was from a low population state, I'd want to be in your Union why?

It's so obvious that if Bush and Gore's places were switched, that the conservatives would be arguing for a more democratic system, and liberals would be arguing for the electoral college system.

So you're saying that Chicago's interests are always more important than Montana's. If one was from a low population state, I'd want to be in your Union why?
Because governments are supposed to represent people, not land. As Chief Justice Earl Warren puts it: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

If Montana and Chicago were to have the same amount of influence, thus votes and seats, why not give equal representation to California and Annapolis? And then Los Angeles and Maryland? and then it all falls down.

Because governments are supposed to represent people, not land. As Chief Justice Earl Warren puts it: "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

If Montana and Chicago were to have the same amount of influence, thus votes and seats, why not give equal representation to California and Annapolis? And then Los Angeles and Maryland? and then it all falls down.

All falls down? Hardly, and you're missing my point: Chicago has a GREATER population than Montana. There is no city that would equal out California, but New York (8 million) would easily cancel out ANY (or any given combination) of 40 of the 50 states!
Heck, if the metro area votes together (and why wouldn't they?) that's 22 million -- or enough to cancel out ANY state (and many combinations) with the sole exception of California!

Now take that a step further: ALL cities. Goodbye States! There is no longer any purpose for you. We may as well adopt a city-state model!

I'm not talking about land/acres/trees. I'm saying that people living in different areas have different interests. I'm also saying that STATES, not people join the Union. Why should a state stay in the union when it will ALWAYS have ZERO input on an election?

And still, no one has taken up the gauntlet and explained why a politician would even care about anywhere that wasn't a city under direct representation. Until that's answered (and there is only one answer: he wouldn't!), then D.R. is never going to happen. Thank goodness.

The current system may not be ideal in everyone's eyes, but it is the fairest possible in my opinion.

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?

Considering that it is doubtful that he was even elected both times (all the election shennanigans 'n all), I don't think so. But really, is anyone worthy of wielding that much power? I don't think so.

It's so obvious that if Bush and Gore's places were switched, that the conservatives would be arguing for a more democratic system, and liberals would be arguing for the electoral college system.

Right. As all the Republican lawsuits and demands for recounts after last November's elections show.

Oh, wait a minute. There weren't any.

So much for your argument.

(Out of curiosity, why Urban II? I've never heard anyone say that before)

Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade.

We would if we wanted to. But there is no need to because there are already too many people in the world.

How altruistic of you: commit national and cultural suicide because some other continent is out-breeding you.

I suppose you'd be the first one to get out of the lifeboat because it's too crowded as well, right?


Different times, different war mate. We're fighting terrorists not governments now.

All the more reason to take the gloves off.


Though your words are indicative of what plagues the American right: a complete and total lack of morals.

I'm probably a lot more ruthless than the average red-county voter. A lot of them still buy into the "we've got to be better than them" argument. But don't worry. They'll come around eventually :D

Right. As all the Republican lawsuits and demands for recounts after last November's elections show.

Oh, wait a minute. There weren't any.

So much for your argument.
The electoral college only applies to presidential elections, does it not?

Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade.
I know that, why is that a good thing? (and I don't want something like "people getting killed in the Middle East is always good")

How altruistic of you: commit national and cultural suicide because some other continent is out-breeding you.
I don't want to commit national or cultural suicide. I actually quite like my culture and I am interested in preserving it. Who are you to tell us to breed anyway? The only reason America has a higher birthrate is because of the Hispanics, not the WASPs. And we (the EU) still have a much higher population than you do (both absolute, and in density).

I suppose you'd be the first one to get out of the lifeboat because it's too crowded as well, right?
If somebody had to, I might well do so.

All the more reason to take the gloves off.
:rolleyes:

Brutality is not a reason in itself for doing anything.

I'm probably a lot more ruthless than the average red-county voter. A lot of them still buy into the "we've got to be better than them" argument. But don't worry. They'll come around eventually.
I certainly hope not. Good morals are of supreme importance. Looks like we'll need to agree to disagree.

Though you do seem quite paranoid about the level of threat that Islamists actually pose to the west.

From what I can tell, Bush is an average politician. He has made serious mistakes, true; so do most politicians.

The trouble is that we need an above-average President right now, not an average one. Not that we knew this when we elected him. And I doubt Gore could have done much better.

We have been tried like this before. Most major wars are trying. In World War II, we had FDR and Truman. In the Civil War, we had Lincoln. They were excellent presidents. However, in Vietnam, we had LBJ and Nixon, who were NOT excellent presidents. Same with Bush.

can i ask, what idiots would vote for HIM?

Americans.

So you're saying that Chicago's interests are always more important than Montana's.

Are you saying that Montana's interests are always more important than Chicagos?

If not, this is a strawman, no?


However - if there are ten times as many voters in Chicago as there are in Montana (you'll forgive my exaggeration for effect), shouldn't Chicago have a greater political 'impact' than Montana?


If one was from a low population state, I'd want to be in your Union why?

Based on historical precedent, you'd probably want to be in that Union because otherwise you'd be killed by an invading army from the more populated states...