USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Luckily his dad got him a spot in a champaign squadron for war cowards.

   You have finally crossed the line you dolt. I use to know a guy who served in the Alabama air national guard for a time. He was a good man and did more good in his life then you ever have or ever will. You calling the Air National guard, specifically the Alabama air national guard, a "champaign squadron for war cowards." is the most pathetic drivel I've heard you say to date.

   God there are so many things I wish I could say right now but I don't wish to get banned.

    I'll just try to keep it simple, Walker you need to watch your mouth. I'm sick of all the crap that rolls out of it and I'm sure others are to. You hate Bush, fine I don't give a damn I don't really like him much either, but your frothing at the mouth hatred of anything remotely related to him such as the Air national guard is simply insane. The whole reason you bash the air guard and slander it as a whole is because Bush was a member at one time. I'm sure you hate Texas to, hell if I told you he ate at a Burger King once and stayed the night at a Motel 6 you would hate them also and probably tie them to Halliburton some how.

I can see now

" Hi all  

     It's official no one likes Burger King because they give half of their profits to TBA and the other commie neo con men. Their special sauce is specially formulated to wipe out the ozone layer and kill trees. So sayeth the wise Michael Moore in his new "documentary".

      Simply crackers

                           Walker."  

     You really remind me of the right wingers back during the Clinton years that went insane at the mear mention of his name. You never miss an opportunity no matter how stupid it is to get in one of your retarded " TBA neo con men" jabs in.

    I really need to just not read your post. This time you really hit nerve. "champaign squadron for cowards" good god, as if you have any credibility what so ever to judge the bravery of an entire branch of the military.

     You literally make me sick. Excuse me now while I go throw up until I dry heave.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I really need to just not read your post. This time you really hit nerve. "champaign squadron for cowards" good god, as if you have any credibility what so ever to judge the bravery of an entire branch of the military.

I think he was talking about that squadron that got labelled has an "champagne unit", by the media and others, in the Texas ANG and not the Alabama ANG squadron Bush was in later on. Hey, I can't read minds...  

*Recalls back*

Hey Walker, remember when you tried to knock me when I made fun of Kerry's condom picture? You replied, being serious, about safety reason and procedure or something. Isn't weird that you mock Bush and the SS because they followed prodecure when the radar monitors on the Domestic Events Network went off?

So it goes,

Billybob2002

edit: something about Domestic Events Network...

Quote[/b] ]"The DEN is a phone bridge that is constantly monitored by safety,

security, and law enforcement personnel...that constantly

monitors the entire National Airspace System for possible anomalies..."

Basically, it's a 24 hour hotline like NAWAS which hooks up all the fed

agencies to report (and disseminate) all aviation-related security alerts

in real-time.

[walker 0]

Hi all

and @ Sputnik Monroe

Even the Air National Guard was embaressed about Bush and the members of the Champaign squadron I quote from their official history.

Quote[/b] ]The Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white men. Military leaders questioned the wisdom of depending on reserve forces that might not be available except in dire emergencies.

http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp

The plane fact is that the coward George Bush Junior served in a champaign squadron for rich white boys.

Bush himsel admits he joined the air national guard in order to dodge vietnam.

That National Guards men and women are serving honourably Iraq I have no doubt but like everybody I note that neither George Bush Junior nor Dick Cheyney have ever served in war and that none of their children have yet volunteered to serve in Iraq.

Kind Regards Walker

[Colossus 2]

CNN News

Quote[/b] ]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials are investigating a report that an apparent hand grenade landed about 100 feet from where President Bush was speaking Tuesday in Tblisi, the capital of Georgia, a Secret Service spokesman said.

Bush waves to people in the crowd after speaking in Freedom Square in Tbilisi on Tuesday.

The Secret Service has not yet confirmed whether the object was a real grenade and if so, whether the pin had been pulled, said spokesman Jim Mackin.

"We have not seen the reported device," he said.

No explosion was reported.

Mackin said Georgian officials alerted their U.S. counterparts about the incident several hours after Bush departed the former Soviet republic, where he received an enthusiastic welcome in a public square in the capital.

According to the account by Georgian security officials, the grenade hit an individual and fell to the ground, Mackin said.

At that point, security officers recognized the device and removed it, he said. No further details were available.

The FBI and State Department are also investigating the incident, Mackin said.

In his speech, Bush told a crowd of tens of thousands that Georgia is proving to the world that determined people can rise up and claim their freedom from oppressive rulers.

Bush's speech was the last event of his five-day, four-nation tour marking the end of World War II in Europe.

"Your most important contribution is your example," Bush said, speaking in Freedom Square, site of protests in November 2003 of the so-called Rose Revolution that put President Mikhail Saakashvili in power.

"Before there was a Purple Revolution in Iraq or an Orange Revolution in Ukraine or a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was a Rose Revolution in Georgia," Bush said.

"You gathered here armed with nothing but roses and the power of your convictions and you claimed your liberty," he said.

"Because you acted, Georgia is today both sovereign and free and a beacon of liberty for this region and the world."

The president also noted that maintaining democracy was hard work. "The path is not easy," Bush said, pledging that Georgians "will not travel it alone."

"The American people will stand with you," he said.

Georgia is widely viewed as helping lead the way for other former Soviet republics to turn away from Moscow and focus more of their efforts on building alliances with the West.

To be angry at him and disagree on everything he says is one think but killing him is maybe too far.

[walker 0]

Hi Collosus

I also do not agree with assasination of a leader who got into power in a democratic election.

Even if the person has commited crimminal acts there are other ways to remove them such as impeachment.

That said it is your duty as member of a democratic free society to question, argue and protest every decision and action of a bad leader or administration anywhere in the world.

George Bush Junior and TBA fall completely into the catagory of bad leader and administration.

Kind Regards Walker

[Colossus 2]

I also do not agree with assasination of a leader who got into power in a democratic election.

I wouldn't call it democratic when the leader got elected with fewer people then the opponent had (2000 election)

Electoral Vote system isn't very democratic, wouldn't you agree?

Quote[/b] ]Even if the person has commited crimminal acts there are other ways to remove them such as impeachment.

Isn't attacking a country with no reason a criminal act?

Isn't sending people to be executed a criminal act?

Isn't holding prisoners and tourturing them a criminal act?

Damn him, his a criminal and the whole world knows it.

But I wouldn't kill him or hurt him in anyway accept with words.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't call it democratic when the leader got elected with fewer people then the opponent had (2000 election)

Electoral Vote system isn't very democratic, wouldn't you agree?

Putin told the same thing to Bush. He said that they may have a look on their own voting system before they go critisizing others on theirs

[Colossus 2]

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't call it democratic when the leader got elected with fewer people then the opponent had (2000 election)

Electoral Vote system isn't very democratic, wouldn't you agree?

Putin told the same thing to Bush. He said that they may have a look on their own voting system before they go critisizing others on theirs  

Bush got owned!

Back to topic.

I couldn't agree more really. I mean when they are talking about that they are the flag ship for democracy.

Quote[/b] ]Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

By the PEOPLE, not how many points each state has.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't call it democratic when the leader got elected with fewer people then the opponent had (2000 election)

Electoral Vote system isn't very democratic, wouldn't you agree?

BAH, Bush isn't the only president to win without getting the popular vote. Also, 2004 sought of vindicated him. Bring it on, bitches!

Quote[/b] ]By the PEOPLE, not how many points each state has.

So, I should tell x state to feck off because your population will not help me win an election. I feel hurt..

[Colossus 2]

Quote[/b] ]By the PEOPLE, not how many points each state has.

So, I should tell x state to feck off because your population will not help me win an election. I feel hurt..

Sorry, I didn't get that part.

[Apollo 0]

Well it's an extreme example ,but what if a candidate wins 51% of the votes in 51% of state's (or equivelant of 51% percent state ponts won) and 0% of vote's in all other state's ,he will win the ellection ,however he will only have roughly 26% percent of the poppular vote and the other candidate will maybe have 74% but loose.

So in theory the ellectoral voting system could allow a candidate to win with only 1/4th of popular vote's against a candidate with 3/4th of popular vote's ,hardly very democratic.

With this add that in many state's not all vote's are counted ,only a token number of vote's that supposedly is representative for the rest of the state.And a clear problem of that is that every state has a governer of a certain party ,and they may influence a vote counting to start at parts of the state that are polarized towards their party.

The debacle in 2000 was mostly about that ,in Florida we had Jeb Bush ,and surprizingly most of the "token vote's" counted were mostly from pro-conservative constituanties ,like the Cuban quarters as example.

This make's the previous calculation even worse ,now a candidate doesnt even have to win 51% vote's in 51% ellectoral point worth state's ,he only has to win a token 51%.He could win with 10% of actual vote's in 51% of state's if they only count the right constituanties ,or basicly a candidate could become president of the United states with only 5% of the real popular vote.because only a token percentage of all votes over the USA are counted ,there is no way to know if the figures of poppular vote from last ellection are albeit true ,supposedly it was 55% for Kerry ,but maybe in 100% of poppular vote's had been counted ,instead of the token 5 or 10% ,then the difference in poppular vote might have been much bigger.

My conclusion: With shitloads of cash and an influential political network it's much easier to become president of the USA than by actually getting a majority of people behind you.

America is only fully democratic in name ,by default any represented democracy isn't a real deomcracy IMO anyway ,but for a partial Democracy the level of democraticness in the USA system is quite depended on the level of political corruption in the USA.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]By the PEOPLE, not how many points each state has.

So, I should tell x state to feck off because your population will not help me win an election. I feel hurt..

Sorry, I didn't get that part.

Replace x state with Hawaii as an example. Hawaii has a small population compared to a lot of the states. You would usually write off that state because their population is very small and would not help will the election. However, if you gave that states "electoral votes" the state does not feel marginalized or left out the loop. You see Cheney went to Hawaii after seeing a poll in 2004 because their electoral votes could had help them alot. If there was not electoral votes, Cheney wouldn't gone to that state because their population is very small. That systen helps the little states (minority) feel just has important has the large states (majority) in an close election. Then again, people say that is one of the arguments why the electoral college was created.

[Colossus 2]

Important?! Every vote is important. Is the state's status more important then the voter?

Where ever a voter is living the vote that this person gives is as important as everyone else, whatever state the person lives in.

Well it's an extreme example ,but what if a candidate wins 51% of the votes in 51% of state's (or equivelant of 51% percent state ponts won) and 0% of vote's in all other state's ,he will win the ellection ,however he will only have roughly 26% percent of the poppular vote and the other candidate will maybe have 74% but loose.

So in theory the ellectoral voting system could allow a candidate to win with only 1/4th of popular vote's against a candidate with 3/4th of popular vote's ,hardly very democratic.

Thats exactly my point.

[Apollo 0]

Even then ,IMO the system of only counting token vote's is much more criminal and anti-democratic than purely the system of ellectoral vote's ,although afcourse im against that to.

But the token vote system leave's much more room for corrupting and basicly destroy's democracy ,if only a token 10% is counted then it's easy to get whatever president you want on the chair with a bit of meddling.It's like as in south Africa ,that only a token 10% of vote's would be counted there ,but "inciddentaly" mostly among the predominantly white constituanties.A system of token vote's is not democracy but oliarchy ,where the powerfull political elite decide's whats counted and what not ,thus making the ultimate decissions.

take into calculation the financial influnce of the coorperations ,and then IMO the USA is more like a Coorperate oliarchy than a democracy.

[Balschoiw 0]

Bitches ?

Better hurry back to biology class billybob:

Quote[/b] ]The word bitch — originally used for the female members of the canid species, specially dogs — is more often employed in a figurative sense as an insult for a promiscuous woman, or a malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive, and/or mean person. The former specialized meaning is retained and in widespread use among dog aficionados and breeders, but derogatory usage has become so prevalent in the last century that the term has acquired a profane connotation and is often considered unacceptable by broadcasting regulations and Standards & Practices manuals.

I suggest you to tone down your hormone driven language to the BIS forum standard.

[billybob2002 0]

Important?! Every vote is important. Is the state's status more important then the voter?

Where ever a voter is living the vote that this person gives is as important as everyone else, whatever state the person lives in.

Quote[/b] ]So in theory the ellectoral voting system could allow a candidate to win with only 1/4th of popular vote's against a candidate with 3/4th of popular vote's ,hardly very democratic.

That rarely happens in which the winner does not win the popular vote and wins the election. Majority of the time the person who wins the popular vote, wins the electoral vote. Lets say that the presidental election was voted directly by the voters and was very close. The loser wants a recount of the election and over 100 million voters voted. How is the recount going to be done? You going to have to recount every state because it's a direct election. Talk about Florida.

Quote[/b] ]I suggest you to tone down your hormone driven language to the BIS forum standard.

Thank you, mod.

Quote[/b] ]

One entry found for sarcasm.

Main Entry: sar·casm

Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m

Function: noun

Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>

2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>

synonym see WIT

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]That rarely happens in which the winner does not win the popular vote and wins the election. Majority of the time the person who wins the population, wins the electoral vote. Lets say that the presidental election was voted directly by the voters and was very close. The loser wants a recount of the election and over 100 million voters voted. How is the recount going to be done? You going to have to recount every state because it's a direct election. Talk about Florida.

How do you know that it rarely happens if only a token number of vote's are counted per state?The figure's of poppular vote of the last ellection are only a derivate of the token 10% votes counted.The fact that a recount was asked in Florida was just because this token count system.If a 100% of poppular vote's are counted in every state and used as determinal ,then there is no reason whatsoever for a recount as the result would be a undeniably correct representation of national voting ,unless local corruption would be in place in wich only locally a recount would have to haoppen ,and that albeit only when the amount of local vote's can be determinal for the global ellection result.Florida 2000 only shows more the inperfecties of ellectoral voting and token vote counting.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Thank you, mod.

No problem, teenager.

[Akira 0]

The electoral college was formed because the founders felt that the average lay person was too stupid and misinformed to be able to vote intelligently. That and communication times back then left something to be desired. The explantion of small states might have made sense in 1800 when the states were still basically independant and trying out this whole "one nation thing," but it is out of date presently. There needn't be a "small state vs large state" argument.

In any case, the technology is available to have a direct popular vote system. That way every state's citizens has a say. Hawaii is a good example because they are 4 hours behind California, and 7-8 hours behind the East Coast. Most elections are all to commonly decided before most Hawaiians even vote. With a direct popular vote, that would no longer be the case.

It would also make the candidates speak to the entire nation, and not a select few double digit electoral vote states. During the last election, I didn't see one political ad (maybe a good thing) because Texas was already written off to Bush. No candidates came here and for damn sure they didn't speak "to Texans."

[Colossus 2]

Important?! Every vote is important. Is the state's status more important then the voter?

Where ever a voter is living the vote that this person gives is as important as everyone else, whatever state the person lives in.

Quote[/b] ]So in theory the ellectoral voting system could allow a candidate to win with only 1/4th of popular vote's against a candidate with 3/4th of popular vote's ,hardly very democratic.

That rarely happens in which the winner does not win the popular vote and wins the election. Majority of the time the person who wins the popular vote, wins the electoral vote. Lets say that the presidental election was voted directly by the voters and was very close. The loser wants a recount of the election and over 100 million voters voted. How is the recount going to be done? You going to have to recount every state because it's a direct election. Talk about Florida.

This is one of the things that is negative with a two-party system, the majority votes only on two parties.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Personally I hate the idea of the popular vote (aka mob rules.) That said I think the electoral college system needs a little tweaking.

   My solution is to give every state 1 electoral vote. Then they are all completely equal. If you go by this system California, New York, and Texas only equal 3 votes the same as small states such as Hawaii, Utah, and Alaska would.

    Yeah I know fifty is an even number. Give the Territories votes also and that'll solve the tie problem.

      In that kind of system the candidates would end up spending time in all the states since they are all of equal value. This would help our nation greatly as the candidates would have to show an interest in all of America’s problems and issues rather than just catering to a handful of overpopulated urban sprawl states.

   The biggest problem with mob rules (popular vote) is that it leaves out Rural and minority groups out of the picture. If you want to go by the popular vote you might as well find out what is the number one majority group in the nation and just place in office who ever the majority of them want. If you go by the mob rules vote New York, California, and Texas will decide it every time.

    The Electoral College in theory is much better because it gives every one a voice no matter where they live. It makes much more sense to give every square inch of the country as much power as the next rather than just letting a few cities decide the future for a land that's over 3,000 miles across simply because they have more people.

     I'm just saying that mob rule is not the way to go. In my opinion mob rules is one of the most evil and primitive systems ever devised. With an Electoral College system that is set up fairly all groups get representation. With the mob rules (popular vote) there are still many groups, but only the biggest one gets any say or representation.

    The way the Electoral College is set up now though California, Texas, and New York pretty much do get all the say. The system of giving a state more votes based on it’s population is foolish as it’s simply a perverted version of the mob rules system. Numbers don't need representation, groups need representation .

     As a final hypothetical to make my point. You live on an island with 5 groups on it. A Black group, Jewish group, white group, Hispanic group, and a neo Nazi group. The neo Nazi group is the largest and holds majority over all the other groups combined. Under the mob rule (popular vote) system the neo Nazis will win every time. Under the group vote electoral college system each of the five groups gets one vote. Which do you think is better.

    Well that’s it. Please debate this civilly. Also please don’t make your decision on this post based on who wrote it. Look at the ideas and then decide.  I get the feeling sometimes that people don’t even read my post, they just start at “Sputnik wrote it there for I disagree†and then work their way backwards from there.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Personally I hate the idea of the popular vote (aka mob rules.)

So you hate democracy?   Atleast i thought represejntative democracy was supposed to be voted like that.

Such a bad sounding term ,that "mob rule" ,as if the coman people would really be that stupid to vote the right people.

Youre idea to give every inch of territory the same voting power regardless of poppulation sounds all to stupid to me ,thats and oppinion.

But know that atleast in europe most country's go by this "mob rule" voting system ,and i don't see any political collapse here.And we have rural and urban area's to.

Quote[/b] ] The Electoral College in theory is much better because it gives every one a voice no matter where they live. It makes much more sense to give every square inch of the country as much power as the next rather than just letting a few cities decide the future for a land that's over 3,000 miles across simply because they have more people.

People make a country ,not territory.if you dont like the right of people in urban area's to vote with their numbers ,then maybe you should think of discarding a few city's like New York and let them form an independant state ,i know a lot of New yorkers who would like that settlement.

The masses of the city's also pay the masses of the costs of the USA and bring the masses of the income ,their economical weight in society gives them the right to have a similar political weight.

Quote[/b] ]The biggest problem with mob rules (popular vote) is that it leaves out Rural and minority groups out of the picture. If you want to go by the popular vote you might as well find out what is the number one majority group in the nation and just place in office who ever the majority of them want. If you go by the mob rules vote New York, California, and Texas will decide it every time.

You can't alter democracy just because population density is not evenly handed.Democracy means the majority rules ,but with respect towards minority's.

There are more political groups representing minority interrests than it's healthy in the USA ,in any case these groups should suffice to represent the rights of the minority's.

Ask youreself what is more democratic ,majority having more politcal weight than minority's ,or minority's having more political weight than the majority.

Quote[/b] ]With the mob rules (popular vote) there are still many groups, but only the biggest one gets any say or representation.

That is untrue ,political positions in senate for ex. are devided among all people according to their ellectoral weight ,it's not like the winner with majority gets all positions ,the others get positions to.Atleast in European system chairs are devided among ellectoral weight ,with multiple party's noone reaches a majority ,forcing them to coalitions.And party's are never tottaly undevided on all issue's ,so you almost always have individual party members going agaist the party line.Then there are also the political groups representing minority's ,often they have more influence than they should have.

[Akira 0]

Sputnik makes some interesting points, and I think everyone is agreeing that some sort of level playing field is needed. We all agree that the fact Texas, California, New York and a few others decide the political course of this country is a pretty crappy way to vote.

I would have to say that popular vote though doesn't disenfranchise rural areas, in so much as the current way disenfranchises a ton of other groups. With popular vote everyone's votes counts. Its possible for an election to come down to the last person voting in Hawaii. That is true democracy. Everyone's voice is heard. A person on a farm in Montana's vote is just as important as a rich stockbrokers in New York.

Any form of an electoral college forces a minority to still be under the thumb of hte majority. If 50.1% vote for one candidate and 49.9% vote for another, they are still under the heel of the 50.1%. The same with your example of the island (though in real politcal terms minorities can join forces or alliances to outvote the majority...or kill off neo-Nazis in Sputniks example ).

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sputnik makes some interesting points, and I think everyone is agreeing that some sort of level playing field is needed. We all agree that the fact Texas, California, New York and a few others decide the political course of this country is a pretty crappy way to vote.

No ,the major urban centers also make up the majority of the BNP of the USA ,it wouldn't be fair to not give them an amount of political weight parralel to the amount of contribution they do towards the USA.

Quote[/b] ]Any form of an electoral college forces a minority to still be under the thumb of hte majority. If 50.1% vote for one candidate and 49.9% vote for another, they are still under the heel of the 50.1%.

Untrue to ,because these 49.9% still have representative's in power ,and in the USA there are many group defending minority rights.

This sort of ligic is rediculous ,it's like saying that Gays should have as much ellectoral power as non-gays as otherwise the gays would be ruled by the non-gays.

Take a example to the European system.here in Belgium we use popular vote ,and we have a number of chairs in senate and other institutions wich are devided according to ellectoral result.Say that you for ex. 100 chairs ,and a person gets 10% of the vote's ,then he gets 10 chairs.Thats fair.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]So you hate democracy?   Atleast i thought represejntative democracy was supposed to be voted like that.

   That's not representative democracy. That's just "There are 5 of us and 1 of you, now you'll do as we tell you."

Quote[/b] ]The masses of the city's also pay the masses of the costs of the USA and bring the masses of the income ,their economical weight in society gives them the right to have a similar political weight.

    And the farmers feed them and the miners give them the materials to produce products in their factories.  Though they are just stupid hicks right? They shouldn't have an equal say.

Quote[/b] ]People make a country ,not territory.

   Yes people do make a nation. Though mob rules says that the biggest group makes the nation. Sound a bit supremicist to me.

Quote[/b] ]if you dont like the right of people in urban area's to vote with their numbers ,then maybe you should think of discarding a few city's like New York and let them form an independant state ,i know a lot of New yorkers who would like that settlement.

    I never said I don't like their right to vote. I think it's wrong for them to have the entire vote. Yeah there are more of them, so how does that justify them having all the say on how the nation is run? Sounds like the law of the jungle to me.

Quote[/b] ]Youre idea to give every inch of territory the same voting power regardless of poppulation sounds all to stupid to me ,thats and oppinion.

  Ok you're right. It is stupid. It is the birth right of the masses to subjugate the minority.