by Simon 242 Replies latest social current
Yeru, you said re Hillary Clinton, the senator from New York:
God forbid that biatch ever be elected president
I assume you meant "bitch." Do you refer to men politicians by similar derogatory and reprehensible terms and, if so, could you provide proof from your postings?
Pat
Gore would have won wrongly, here in the US the President is determined by electoral votes, not popular votes...and thank God, could you imagine a recount of the entrie country?
Yeru,
If the voting were done in foolproof matter electronically, yes (Diebold not invited). It can't be much worse then it is in soon-tobe bananna republics like Miami, now can it? The Reform Party (of Perot, Buchanan, Trump, Ventura) was hoping for something like that, and I think that it is still a good idea. Bear in mind, the Republicans were populists, way back in the day. There's too much margin for corruption in the Electoral College system.
There's too much margin for corruption in the Electoral College system.
hmmmm, like there's no margin for corruption in the popular vote (especially now with electronic voting). How do you think JFK got elected by such a narrow margin from suspect Chicago districts?
Patio,
Sure, Gore is a biatch too, in fact, he was Billary's Biatch for 8 years. Then there's KKK Byrd, Swimmer Kennedy, and that SOB Clinton himself...how's that.
Well, as lawyers say, asked and answered. No further comment.
talesin,
You said:
THAT kind of opinionating and meddling is why we kicked the invading Brits out of our land and formed our own Constitution, or don't you know that?
: (bold is mine)
: So are you saying that America was not a British colony, that the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party in reaction to the Stamp Tax Act and the 'fact' that revolution in reaction to overtaxation by the 'motherland' was all a big lie?
: I thought America was settled Brits who invaded the aboriginal peoples and then revolted against unfair government and overtaxation? (similar story as here in CDA, btw, our roots are no better/worse)
:Confused ... please help me out here.
No problem. First, let me say that my genes are at least 90% British. My ancestors were from Birmingham and settled in American in the mid 1850's. I have no problem with the British people, because gene-wise, I are one.
America was a British colony. The American Revolution happened. The Boston Tea Party happened, but not for the reasons we were taught in school and by the press . It turns out that several of our patriots including Franklin and Adams had large reserves of tea. What better way to capture the market than convince people to dress up like Indians, toss out British tea in the harbor and thus insuring they had the only supply available and blame it on the Stamp Act? Sorry, but as much as I admire our orginal and very famous patriots, they were not without fault.
Now, on the other hand King George III was absolutely insane. Probably due to all that Hapsburg inbreeding. Most knowledgable Brits will even admit to this.
America was settled by Brits, but other seafaring European countries were here before them.
The whole American Revolution revolved around two things, IMHSO:
1. King George III was insane and would not listen to any reason. Re-read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, for example. I've never read a document so polite and giving so many outs for King George and giving so much logic for declaring an independence that that. It is a masterpiece.
2. The BIGGIE: being independent was good for the elite Colonist's BUSINESS. England was cut out of having their piece of the pie, and that meant that the business of the elite Colonists got a bigger piece. And if they were "patriotic" Americans, they could dictate how big their piece of the pie was by merely going to congress.
These are ugly facts, but these are facts. Thank God at least we got the Constitution to keep the scumbags in line.
Today: the scumbags are even trying to take that away from us. On that point, I would painfully have to agree with Simon.
The only problem is: which scumbag can we trust? I don't see much choice in the fall elections.
Farkel, troubled over this
Edited by me because I responded to the wrong poster.
Dang! I hate it when that happens.
Farkel
I managed to make it through this entire thread and I have to say out of all the comments made this one is one that can be taken to the bank:
but not for the reasons we were taught in school and by the press
Even thought it was made "off track" it still applies to the bulk of the thread.
Thoughts:
1. I really doubt the Nader run will have the same impact. after all, a lot of his big supporters returned back to the fold, and in spite of what he says, most do see a difference between Bush and Kerry. (only the most Commie on the left or the most Fascist on the right would have trouble making the distinction) Plus, the Democrats in Florida may tar and feather him. I think Dean will be able to keep the kook left in line.
2. Kerry has a few problems...He has to deal with a humongous Bush war chest and the entire Fox empireThey'll be doing their damndest to paint him as far to the left as possible. and yes, he's given them a lot of liberal votes to play with, too.
3. Bold Prediction --- Cheney will be dropped from the ticket. He's getting a really negative image, and a new face will deflect the "Oil Industry Stooge" charges.
4. Hillary will speak at the convention...and that's it. no VP.
5. The Yankees have too many question marks on pitching to win the series...The Astros over the Red Sox in 6. (sorry... sidetracked)
6. Just like 92': It's the economy, stupid. Bush needs to play up the recovery (should it keep up) all he can. ringing the 9-11 bell over and over would be seen as a smokescreen by some.
7. Yeah, we lost the electoral college vote, but we still need to keep it. It's an important part of Federalism that this country is established on. Otherwise, winning the top 12 cities in the country would be tantamount, but this makes the heartland much more relevant to winning a race. Plus, voter fraud in just one city could damage an entire national count, effectively negating the output of other state's entire vote...But under the EC, it only affects on state's output (like Florida...I've already trained my 6 year old to say "The President lost the election...He cheated!" when Dubya comes on.)
This thread was a good Idea...long may she wave!
Oh, and Simon....Your country needs to get out of Ireland...
Bush won Florida by 537 votes. He did not win the "popular vote" of the nation but he was elected in a duly Constitutional manner and we as citizens should abide by it and respect his position. To undermine his legitimate authority for political reasons is to hack at the branch we're all sitting on. You can disagree, even strongly, with what he does in that office - you can call him names, parody him in cartoons, hell, do whatever you want, you are free. But to call his election "stolen" is to threaten the very foundation of our nation: the Constitution and the respect for the electoral system it put in place. You can even try to amend the electoral system if you want - but as long as we have it you shouldn't call a President elected by it "illegitimate".
Besides, I think it makes our elections more fun.
Gotta disagree with you, Yeru. National health insurance. It's time. If the dems offer it, I might swing my vote... Our lack of care for the sick is disgusting. Bankrupting someone for falling prey to cancer, the scourge of our industrially polluted society? No. If industry insists on polluting, then we need to slide more of the resulting GDP into fixing the things that go wrong because of industrial pollution. There would be more economic incentive to find cures - with tax rewards and accolades going to the discoverers of new treatments. I'm pissed off enough about this to consider revolution. If the government isn't going to help secure the blessings of liberty, but rather sacrifices the health of myself and my loved ones on the altar of Mammon, then that government has failed me and I must change it, one way or another.
CZAR
