Posts by Julie

26

US Law & Presidency

by Amazing in

jw
friends

us law & presidency .

many non-american people as well as many american citizens do not fully understand the legal premise of our system, nor how the system is designed to function.

because so many have a hazy idea, they often make mistakes in voting and involvement in the political system.. the presidency: the office of the us president was designed to be weak and largely one of administration.

Julie

Hi Amazing,

I am very sorry you feel I have been sarcastic and insincere throughout this entire discussion. In my last post to you the only time I was intentionally sarcastic was on the corporate welfare matter. The rest was sincere. The only time I had fun at your expense was the post where I was claiming severe stupidity.

Please know that I mean this post and all it's content in complete sincerity. One point I would like to make with you is you imply, pretty regularly, quite the opposite of your compliments. Like I said in my last post, maybe it is unintentional I don't know. When you make comments like "...in the Real World" it makes a strong implication that the person you are talking about is coming from a different world.

I tried to address all your points in my last post, I am sincerely sorry you feel I was dodging issues and just being nonsensical.

How about a deal? I promise not to be so quick to assume dishonesty or misrepresentation of facts and you could be not so quick to assume that I am utterly clueless/uninformed.

Julie, who doesn't regret what she said, only how some of it was said

26

US Law & Presidency

by Amazing in

jw
friends

us law & presidency .

many non-american people as well as many american citizens do not fully understand the legal premise of our system, nor how the system is designed to function.

because so many have a hazy idea, they often make mistakes in voting and involvement in the political system.. the presidency: the office of the us president was designed to be weak and largely one of administration.

Julie

Hi Amazing,

:Hi Julie: Well, I just got through giving you a compliment in another post, and then I see your response here [:)) Oh well, I will try to wrap this up in a way that works for you.

I am sorry to see this from you as it indicates you take offense from my post. Believe it or not that was quite far from my intention on this particular post.

:You and I are not all that far apart, but I think you just want to pick a fight.

Yesterday I was just stirring up the shit for fun some of the time, I can assure you, though I am not at all trying to "pick a fight" with you. Not here, not now. I'll let you know

:Recently, someone on another forum complained that my posts are 'too long and detailed.' When I try to be succinct, then the one little thing 'left out' suddenly takes one major importance ... as though I was trying to 'hide' something.

This still on your mind eh? I thought it an important fact that Clinton won the Most votes in those elections. This was a fact you left out and coupled with the comment you made it looked as though maybe it was the same situation as the 2000 (lose the popular win the electoral). This was entirely untrue and I didn't want that inference to be taken as fact. I saw that the person who replied before I did seemed to take that very message away from your post so I couldn't have been that far off.

:$Big Bucks$ are given to Congressional Candidates too. My previous employer used to send a check for the maximum allowed by law to BOTH the Democrat and Republican candidates. What is that? Both? Yep! That way, regardless of who wins, the company could get their foot in the door to make their case in the event some unwanted legislation emerged. Yep!

This practice is as old as the hills. In medieval times, when there was a dispute over the throne, it was common for a powerful family to have a member in both camps. That way whoever won the family could claim to have supported the winner and hold onto (at least some of) their lands/power.

:Thank you GOP for getting us Tax cuts and other needed corporate welfare! Thanks Gawd!!!

Oh yes!!! Thank Gawd for the corporate welfare (especially the backroom dirty deal kind). I especially am fond of how much of the tax burden that shifts to us, the little people.

:You must be awfully young kiddo to think that the Donkey-Ass Party (oops Democrats) are just now opening up their coffers to $Big Bucks$ from Businesses!

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't 2000 the first year the Democrats have been able to match the Rebuplicans in $$$? I know how you are a stickler for sources regarding statements that to many seem to be common knowledge but I don't have one for what I will say next. It has been noted by some that the Democratic Party isn't really the party of the Everyman anymore and that it has as much special interest money Now as the Republicans. This is a statement I agree with. I am aware of some of the longtime, bigtime donors to the Dems. There are more recent ones than oldtime ones.

:And, I have this gut instinct that you are going to take exception to this, so I will make a new post special for you and explain what happens in Real Life and not the conspiracy-fantasies that many have about money, politics, and influence.

Amazing, have you ever stopped to consider your approach to others? Yes I can be sarcastic but it is quite blatant and obvious (on purpose). You though seem to talk down your nose quite a bit.

I do not entertain conspiracy fantasies regarding money and politics. Not at all. Know why? Cause I read. Yes, I read plenty of books, articles, etc. on the matter and learn all that I can about it. I know that some little nobody like you or me can cough up a check or two and we are still nobody. I know that industries who employ lobbyists and toss around Serious Money are the ones who buy access. Believe it or not I even know what Serious Money really is too. You'll have to trust me on this as it's in the Personal Realm and this isn't the place for that.

:Our system is about Electoral Game of States, thus one must win the most Electoral Votes

Ok, I will tell you right now that you can stop explaining to me how this works, I already know. While I think that the electoral college represents landmass and popular vote represents people I am opposed to eliminating the electoral college.

:So, I cited that Clinton won only 43% of the vote, or substantially less than George Bush, and yet the Democrats did not feel shy about Bill Clinton being a legitimate President. Bush gets 49% of the vote and all hell breaks loose because Gore got more.

Clinton got more than Bush Sr. and won the electoral college. Gore got more than Bush Jr. but Bush Jr. won electoral college. What is it about the diffences in these elections and their results that you don't understand? In the 1992 election the person that one the Most popular votes won the electoral college, unlike the 2000 election. This point seem to be lost on you and I can't understand why. Even the apathetic voters who occassionally watched the news at election time ( all 30 days of it) could tell you that the results of the 2000 election haven't happened for about 100 years. You seem to think it happened every election involving Clinton as well as this last one.

:My greatest concern with you is that you take things too personally. You read into posts emotions that the author does not intend. And you take some missing item and assume deliberative intent of the author to obfuscate it.

Is it not wise to "make sure of all things"? If you can't see why I would think you leaving out 2/3's of the election results you cited was less than forthcoming I doubt I'd be able to explain it to you.

:This is not healthy, fair, or rational debate.

You are so special Amazing. You leave out facts in order to make an absurd comparison but I am the one who is not fair. You infer I subscribe to Money-Fantasies re: politics as well as asserting I am young and quite uniformed, nothing more than one of the apathetic masses, and you play the Big All Knowing Father (or worse Big Brother)Figure but I am the one with the unhealthy outlook/approach. You lump me (and maybe others just as wrongfully) into the general masses of the Unknowing/Uniformed and also send out generalized put-downs ("the Donkey-Ass Party (oops Democrats)") but I am not rational. Whatever.

Amazing I have read posts of yours I have agreed with completely and found to be rather insightful. While I was once smart-ass enough with you to state I would "speak slowly" (for which I was thoroughly chastened by you and most of the same like-minded buddies who showed up in this thread if I recall correctly) I have to say that it is you who seems to have the thoroughly condescending attitude. You seem to think no one knows as much as you or could possibly have as complete of an understanding of matters as you. I wonder if you really feel this way or if it is unintentional.

Regardless of all that, I am still glad to find a fellow American who cares enough to have learned about the system and how it works. I wish with all my heart more would, no matter what side of the aisle they end up on.

Julie

60

White House Lunatic Imperils Us All.

by Englishman in

jw
friends

not just content with attempting to scuttle the kyoto accord by claiming it was anti-american, bush has now pulled the usa out of an international agreement on tightening up controls on chemical warfare, citing almost exactly the same concerns.

can't you blokes across the atlantic impeach this lunatic?.

..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

Julie

Hi Michael,

You can sit in on Amazing's civics lesson. It's under US Law and the Presidency (I think that's the name of the thread). Enjoy.

Julie

26

US Law & Presidency

by Amazing in

jw
friends

us law & presidency .

many non-american people as well as many american citizens do not fully understand the legal premise of our system, nor how the system is designed to function.

because so many have a hazy idea, they often make mistakes in voting and involvement in the political system.. the presidency: the office of the us president was designed to be weak and largely one of administration.

Julie

Hi Amazing,

:The Office of President is not so much one of power as influence and presitege. The President earned $200,000 per year from Kennedy's time until recently when it was finally raised to $500,000 annual salary. A corporate executive can earn much more. Some Executives earn tens of millions. Likewise, the power of running a major corporation is far more intriguing and totalitarian.

I have just realized how incredibly far apart you and I are in our thinking. See you thought the money "involved" in the presidency was a reference to salary. You are much mistaken though understandably so. No I was talking about the Campaign Fundraising sort of money. You will note a direct correlation to Major Campaign Contributions and the attitudes taken by many lawmakers, the president (some moreso than others but all to a degree) etc. I have seen donar lists that explain many a vote/policy decison (in all fairness this applies equally to both parties, especially the last few years since the Dems have also opened their doors and coffers to big corporate $$$ too).

I agree completely with you that Presidential Power has it's limitations and I believe it to be a good thing as I am sure we all do. As for actual monetary compensation for the job, no it isn't much of a salary when compared to the incredibly high incomes of many a corporate exec but the influence and perks are priceless.

There is more to consider though of course. The president does represent us in other nations. I can just imagine the difficulties Putin had not laughing when Bush was blathering about looking "into his soul". LOL What a moron. Is this what I want Russia (or anyone else for that matter)to think of the American people, no, how about you?

Heady stuff, representing the US around the world. I would guess such a thing would even be intoxicating, maybe even addictive. Yes, I think there is a great amount more at stake than what the Executive powers ential. Things that you cannot buy, at least not outright.

Julie

P.S. I forgot I wanted to comment on the whole "majority" thing (hence this edit). I would like to substitute "most" for "majority" in my post sharing the full election results of 1992 and 1994. That is more accurate in the point I was trying to make and the one I Thought you were incorrectly making. I'll try to remember to be more of a literalist when exchanging thoughts with you.

26

US Law & Presidency

by Amazing in

jw
friends

us law & presidency .

many non-american people as well as many american citizens do not fully understand the legal premise of our system, nor how the system is designed to function.

because so many have a hazy idea, they often make mistakes in voting and involvement in the political system.. the presidency: the office of the us president was designed to be weak and largely one of administration.

Julie

Hi Amazing,

Yes, I was quite sarcastic, having some fun at your expense I guess. Sorry but I couldn't resist.

It did appear to me that you presented half of the facts on the first post I replied to and (again, merely my perception)it seemed to me, in the second, that you really tried to downplay the power of the presidency (to the extent of Slant even).

The true test of how much "power" a position in Washington has might be clearly indicated by that person's/position's fundraising abilities. Not always a true litmus test but surely one to keep in mind. Why would so much money be involved if the presidency were really an impotent position? It wouldn't.

Sorry to have irritated you and all your like minded buddies.

Julie

26

US Law & Presidency

by Amazing in

jw
friends

us law & presidency .

many non-american people as well as many american citizens do not fully understand the legal premise of our system, nor how the system is designed to function.

because so many have a hazy idea, they often make mistakes in voting and involvement in the political system.. the presidency: the office of the us president was designed to be weak and largely one of administration.

Julie

Hi Amazing,

:Yes, I could have presented more details. I do not argue with the additional details you include. But to conclude that I am being devious somehow is not correct, nor fair-minded, and suggest that you have some agenda yourself.

That's it, I have an Agenda. (um, what would that be?)

I guess what you consider "winning the majority" and what I consider "winning the majority" are two entirely different things. In my simple-minded view I was under the impression that the person who got the most votes from the populace "won the majority" of the popular vote. Apparently, according to you, this is not the case.

Considering how I stupidly believed that getting the most votes from the populace meant winning the majority of the popular vote, you can easily see how I stupidly thought your publication of half of the facts was intended to be misleading.

:My point was to show that the whole debate about the US President seems silly to me, given the weakness of the office.

See, here is another point that helps me to understand my own stupidity. I knew that the legislative branch of our government has the most authority but, simpleton that I am, I guess I didn't fully understand the severity of the weakness of the office of the president. I was going around stupidly believing that to be able to appoint the cabinet and the lower tiers was a valuable power. I also was under the wrong assumption that having the power to nominate/appoint Supreme Court justices and other federal judgeships was a valuable power (also the power to decide who gets first crack at reviewing those nominess i.e. the ABA no longer has that priveledge but I believe it goes to an organization headed by the beloved, owed-a-great-debt-by-the-Republicans, Ken Starr). Fool that I am I thought it was a powerful position to be in to be at the head of your party and be able to influence votes in the legislative branch. Can you believe I actually thought having the power to veto legislation was Really Something? What a moron I have been.

Thanks for helping me to see that the president of the United States is the biggest nobody in Washington D.C..

Julie, who now realizes that an Executive Order issued by the president is really nothing at all

60

White House Lunatic Imperils Us All.

by Englishman in

jw
friends

not just content with attempting to scuttle the kyoto accord by claiming it was anti-american, bush has now pulled the usa out of an international agreement on tightening up controls on chemical warfare, citing almost exactly the same concerns.

can't you blokes across the atlantic impeach this lunatic?.

..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

Julie

Hi Hawk,

:I am far from the "right" and thanks for the "ad hominem".

Well since you don't consider "right-wing lunatic" an oxymoron you can't be all bad.

:I have also followed McCain much further than you probably have and I know how he thinks.

As long as you didn't "look into his soul".

:He almost won the "ticket" the last time and his "message" was popular. BTW he got vast support not from the parties BUT from the - independents. What cost him was he started way too late in the game. What helped him was the media and Bush's lack of debating skills - something he got from his dad. What killed him - South Carolina and hacking up the "base" that even I hate - the Gerry Fawell(sp?) dudes.

You know, I heard there was some real nasty business in South Carolina, mostly perpetrated by some Christian Hardliners (not out to offend anyone). I heard tales (I have no sources, various pundits and reporters etc. is where I heard this) of some serious defamation of character going on there after the New Hampshire primary. Just talk but you never know....

:The "keating 5" was disgusting but it absolutely does not disqualify him from being the POTUS just like the incident with Teddy does not disqualify him. In fact I would urge him to run again if I could. But it is as they say a liability that either party would use against him.

I think he appeals to many centrist voters. That was a Clinton strength and it worked well for him and I am certain no candidate ever suffered pre-emptive attacks he was subjected to (i.e. Lee Attwater)

:ummm.... Aren't some islands in Alaska within a few hundred or so miles of Russia????

Oh yes!! Why if I slant the map just right, we are practically touching.

:Anyway - I say "Uncle". You have an excellent view. Your thinking and that is great. And I am proud you have your views. I will tell you that I respect them.

Well Hawk, that is most gracious of you and you have my thanks. I don't know that my view is "excellent", my biggest hardship: openmindedness. I work on it every day.

:Don't give up your independence, Julie, and fight for what you believe in. I apologize if I have offened you in anyway. You actually make me quite proud.

Even more gracious Hawk. I am glad you at least have the interest to be knowledgable on what's important to you. Wish more folks would make that effort, we'd all be better off.

Julie

26

US Law & Presidency

by Amazing in

jw
friends

us law & presidency .

many non-american people as well as many american citizens do not fully understand the legal premise of our system, nor how the system is designed to function.

because so many have a hazy idea, they often make mistakes in voting and involvement in the political system.. the presidency: the office of the us president was designed to be weak and largely one of administration.

Julie

Thank you for the interesting information Amazing. I was a little disappointed in your presentation of only half the facts regarding the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.

:Therefore, Bill Clinton only received 43% of the Popular Vote in 1992, but won the Electoral College. (Notice how Democrats never complained about Bill stealing the election) Then, in 1996, Bill Clinton still only won 49% of the Popular Vote, but won the Electoral College.

Amazing, I find it extremely interesting that you fail to include how much of the popular vote was won by the other candidates. In 1992 yes Clinton only won 43% of the vote, Bush won 37.4 and Perot just under 19%. In 1996 Clinton won 49%, Dole 41% and Perot 8.5%. I don't see a clear contest here as to who won more of the popular vote, in fact I see no contest at all. Clinton won more of the popular vote than the other candidates and the electoral college vote reflected that. Why would anyone (Republican or Democrat) assert the election was stolen?

Why would you present such an incomplete picture if you are truly trying to teach accurate information? Why toss in that inflammatory remark about the "dems" not complaining about the election being "stolen"? I am getting the feeling you aren't making much of an effort to present a clear and Objective view here Amazing. It is quite JWish actually. Old habits die hard? My sympathies.

Julie

P.S. Marilyn, sorry you were so mislead by Amazing's post, like religion one must check on all things where emotions run high, facts are often altered to suit views. Just a friendly FYI :-)

35

A Question thats troubling me........

by aud8 in

jw
friends

"this good news will be preached for a witness to all the inhabited nations and then the end will come" nobody else is preaching any good news as far as i can see?

what do you think?

Julie

Me and countless others are sharing good news every day. The good news is that the bible and it's thundering, vengeful biblegod are nonsense and that life can be lived without superstition and fear of offending biblegod.

That my friend is very good news.

Julie

60

White House Lunatic Imperils Us All.

by Englishman in

jw
friends

not just content with attempting to scuttle the kyoto accord by claiming it was anti-american, bush has now pulled the usa out of an international agreement on tightening up controls on chemical warfare, citing almost exactly the same concerns.

can't you blokes across the atlantic impeach this lunatic?.

..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

Julie

Hi Hawk--

Yes, I did know about the Keating Five. What of it? Do you think that would disqualify McCain for the presidency?

You are a right-wing lunatic. Why don't you explain to me again how Russia is in our neighborhood.......

Julie