Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Placebo

USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

Recommended Posts

Quote[/b] ]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.

Actually it is unfair. Why should everyone else in the nation be beholden to a few large cities? Voting significance is not meant to be based on economic power or status, otherwise the founders would have let the Northern states decide evreything eh? To say because a city makes more money than farmers in Iowa and thus are more important political is ridiculous not to mention discriminatory.

Quote[/b] ]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.

What the hell does sexual preference have to do with anything crazy_o.gif

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

I really have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. In the present electoral college system in the USA not Belgium, the minority is always under the heel of the majority. If 51% vote for one person, than all electoral votes go for that person...not 10%. If you are talking about federal representative elections, we already have popular vote for candidates...the one with the most votes wins. There's only two parties of note, and one seat available for a district so spliting based on percentage of vote is stupid. crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]A person on a farm in Montana's vote is just as important as a rich stockbrokers in New York.

I respectfully disagree. Their are less farmers in all America than there are rich stockbrokers in all of America. So the rich stock brokers win every time, which is good for the farmers assuming that rich stock brokers have the same concerns and ideals as the farmers.

I'm going to take a gamble though and say that the Montana farmer's concerns would probably be at odds with the rich New York stock broker’s. That's the big issue, what's good for the cities is not always what's good for the rural areas and vice versa.

That's where the need to divide the electoral system up into groups becomes crucial. If a president is elected by a majority of groups that all hail from different back grounds and walks of life then you know that the majority of classes and groups are happy with the outcome.

The popular vote system tends to favor one group, the cosmopolitan east/west coast city group. While it's obvious that there will be differences in philosophy between say San Francisco, Miami, Boston, and New York, they aren't likely to be that radically different from one another. In the mean time though you have left out many groups residing between the two coast that combined together can't compete numerically with the coast cities, such as the mid-west farmer, the West Virginia Coal miner, the small logging town in Idaho, the black community in Memphis Tennessee, the Rancher in Utah, etc,etc. Groups that between them will have many radically different concerns and issues of importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]
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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

cut and pasted text:

-------------------------------------------

Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein voters choose (in free, secret, multi-party elections) representatives to act in their interests, but not as their proxies—i.e., not necessarily as directed but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances.

some further on topic snippets:

Tyranny of the majority

This issue is also discussed in the article on Majoritarianism.

Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule may lead to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority". This refers to the possibility that a democratic system can empower elected representatives acting on behalf of the majority view to take action that oppresses a particular minority. This clearly has the potential to undermine the aspiration of democracy as empowerment of the citizenry as a whole. For example, it is theoretically possible in a liberal democracy to elect a representative body that will decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalized (either directly or indirectly).

Proponents of democracy make a number of defenses to this. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or, very rarely, a referendum. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.

Another argument is that majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision.

A third common argument is that, despite these risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is at all events an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.

----------------------------------------------------------

What i point out is that what i said is basicly true in that 1 vote per person with equal weight is normal to the deffinition to of representative democracy.

These snippet's point out a lot of thing's that i tried to point out earlier:

-Majority rule is more democratic than minority rule

-Even then there are thing's in place to make sure that the rights of the minority's are represented to ,interrest groups ,constitutional rights ,etc.

-Seperation of powers means that while one president is ellected by minoity ,there are still things like a senate where power is devided according to ellectoral power.

Quote[/b] ]
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.

I didn't say they are stupid hicks ,dont bend my words like that.  mad_o.gif

They have an equal say ,each miner and farmer gets 1 vote ,just like any urban dweller.Individually the power is the same.

giving every farmer and miner 10 vote's because they are only 1/10th of poppulation would make it unequal rights.

Quote[/b] ]
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.

But then what should be the deciding factor on who gets more votes than an other?Poppulation indensity? Looks to me as a rediculous deciding factor and thus makes my point of gays vs non gays all to valid.Btw may i point out that in land mass Alaska is about equal to 1/3th of the USA.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]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.  

What the hell does sexual preference have to do with anything  

you make the point that ellectoral power should be decided on other factor's rather than poppulation number of a certain area ,then the question arises on wich factor's ,you point towards the rural minority vs urban majority ,but rural minority is not the only minority that by youre logic can be overuled by it's counterpart majority.

There is also a non gay majority vs a gay minority ,should gays have more ellectoral power because otherwise they could be ruled by the non-gays?

There are many majority/minority differences in society ,in Europe demographicly the older gennerations are in bigger numbers than younger generations ,that doesn't mean that the young gebneration is that much more dominated by the older generation ,or that we therefore have more right for ellectoral power.

Try to give me an ethical reasoning why a rural minority vs a urban majority should be trated otherwise in society because of the thought that "the majority can rule the minority" ,but why this same logic wouldn't apply for other minority's like gays wich for wich the same "majority rules over minority" thought would apply.

Quote[/b] ]I really have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.  In the present electoral college system in the USA not Belgium, the minority is always under the heel of the majority. If 51% vote for one person, than all electoral votes go for that person...not 10%. If you are talking about federal representative elections, we already have popular vote for candidates...the one with the most votes wins. There's only two parties of note, and one seat available for a district so spliting based on percentage of vote is stupid

What i wanted to point out is that you have a very small view on how a representative democracy could work ,their are many systems possible ,atleast in Europe representative democracy "mod rule" works with a vote for every person withought therefore minority's being more overruled than in any other system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]you make the point that ellectoral power should be decided on other factor's rather than poppulation number of a certain area ,then the question arises on wich factor's ,you point towards the rural minority vs urban majority ,but rural minority is not the only minority that by youre logic can be overuled by it's counterpart majority.

There is also a non gay majority vs a gay minority ,should gays have more ellectoral power because otherwise they could be ruled by the non-gays?

There are many majority/minority differences in society ,in Europe demographicly the older gennerations are in bigger numbers than younger generations ,that doesn't mean that the young gebneration is that much more dominated by the older generation ,or that we therefore have more right for ellectoral power.

Try to give me an ethical reasoning why a rural minority vs a urban majority should be trated otherwise in society because of the thought that "the majority can rule the minority" ,but why this same logic wouldn't apply for other minority's like gays wich for wich the same "majority rules over minority" thought would apply.

rock.gifcrazy_o.gif

What I said is I don't like any group having electoral control over another group. I said I wanted "one person, one vote".

rock.gif

Quote[/b] ]What i wanted to point out is that you have a very small view on how a representative democracy could work ,their are many systems possible ,atleast in Europe representative democracy "mod rule" works with a vote for every person withought therefore minority's being more overruled than in any other system.

rock.gif

Are you drunk? Because you are saying that I said what Sputnik's point is. As I said...I want one person, one vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Are you drunk? Because you are saying that I said what Sputnik's point is. As I said...I want one person, one vote.

Sorry ,then i misinterpretated youre words.Maybe i misinterpretated it due to these comment:

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.

And the fact that these regions "decide the political course" ,is because they are most populous ,any alteration to this would also mean an alteration to a 1 person 1 vote system under a popular vote system ,probably i misinterpretated this because you still talked from the perspective of points allocated per state.

thus ,my Apollo-gies wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just givin' someone props for making an intelligent post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The popular vote system tends to favor one group, the cosmopolitan east/west coast city group. While it's obvious that there will be differences in philosophy between say San Francisco, Miami, Boston, and New York, they aren't likely to be that radically different from one another.  In the mean time though you have left out many groups residing between the two coast that combined together can't compete numerically with the coast cities, such as the mid-west farmer, the West Virginia Coal miner, the small logging town in Idaho, the black community in Memphis Tennessee, the Rancher in Utah, etc,etc. Groups that between them will have many radically different concerns and issues of importance.

The latest election results point to something different. The urban areas were all pro-Kerry and yet Bush won the popular vote.

Democracy, any way you put it is majority rule (or mob rule if you wish), It's never what the individual wants, but what the group wants.

As for taking diversity into consideration by giving smaller groups equal voting power to larger groups is a practical impossibility. Just like you say that the mid-west farmers can't compete in numbers with the people from urban areas, the mid-west atheist farmer can't compete in numbers with the religious mid-west farmer. And the mid-west religious pro-choice farmer can't compete with the mid-west religious pro-life...and the mid-west religious pro-life gay farmer can't compete with the mid-west religious pro-life straight farmer..

The point being is that you can keep on subdivisioning people into groups until you come to the level of the individual. So de-facto to protect the rights of the individual, you have to give everybody an equal voting right.

Having said that, I do understand the historical reasons behind the EC and there are several aspects of it that make such a system desirable. The historical context is not difficult to understand - the US was a decentralized rural set of communities. There was no strong central government, communication, transport infrastructure etc were more or less non-existent. Having an old-school one person, one vote election on a national level would be a practical impossibility.

One possibly attractive feature of the current system (UK has also a similar one) is that in the US the democracy is local. This, one can argue is essential for democracy, that people know the candidates and what they stand for. One could on the other hand say that today it is irrelevant thanks to the TV, internet etc. One could also argue that the counties are far too large for the people there to personally know the candidates.

I've until relatively recently always been a proponent of a single-chamber parliamentary system, where people vote directly on national level for representatives in the parliament. However, with the debate the last few years about the EU constitution, I came to realize that my view was based on assumptions that weren't applicable on the Union level. I think that the principle that they've agreed on now is fairly good: the double majority principle.

In such a system, you have a two-chambered parliament where the representatives in one chamber represent the popular vote, while the other chamber represents the member states. A law is approved only if more than half of the MEP's (representing more than half of the population) and more than half of the MEC's (one commissioner per country) vote for it. So a majority of the people and a majority of the countries are needed to approve a law. That way both the individual voting rights of every European is protected, while at the same time the interests of the individual member states is protected as well.

It's also worth noting that currently, with the Nice Treaty in effect, the number votes per country to the EP is weighted. So on union level we (until the new constitution gets ratified) have a weighted voting system as well - in order to protect the smaller countries:

Quote[/b] ]

<span style='font-family:"Courier"'>Country      Population   MEP's       Pop/MEP     Relative influence

Luxembourg     0.4          6          66667           12.42          

Malta          0.4          5          80000           10.53          

Cyprus         0.8          6          133333          6.21          

Estonia        1.4          6          233333          3.54          

Slovenia       2.0          7          285714          2.89          

Latvia         2.4          9          266667          3.10          

Ireland        3.7          13         284615          2.91          

Lithuania      3.7          13         284615          2.91          

Finland        5.2          14         371429          2.22          

Denmark        5.3          14         378571          2.18          

Slovakia       5.4          14         385714          2.14          

Austria        8.1          18         450000          1.84          

Sweden         8.9          19         468421          1.76          

Portugal       9.9          24         412500          2.00          

Hungary        10.0          24        416667          1.98          

Belgium        10.2          24        425000          1.94          

CzechRepublic  10.3          24        429167          1.92          

Greece         10.6          24        441667          1.87          

Netherlands    15.8          27        585185          1.41          

Poland         38.6          54        714815          1.15          

Spain          39.4          54        729630          1.13          

Italy          57.7          78        739744          1.11          

France         59.1          78        757692          1.09          

UnitedKingdom  59.4          78        761538          1.08          

Germany        82.1          99        828283          1.00</span>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I respectfully disagree. Their are less farmers in all America than there are rich stockbrokers in all of America. So the rich stock brokers win every time, which is good for the farmers assuming that rich stock brokers have the same concerns and ideals as the farmers.

I'm going to take a gamble though and say that the Montana farmer's concerns would probably be at odds with the rich New York stock broker’s. That's the big issue, what's good for the cities is not always what's good for the rural areas and vice versa.

True, but that is not really the issue in a popular vote for presidential election. You will never be able to satisfy all the needs of citizens, and you can't split one seat between the needs of the every citizen.

If predominately liberal East and West Coast decide the presidential election, then how did Bush win the popular vote last election? Generally it was the rural areas that decided many states (like Ohio). If anything, the last vote showed that a popular vote is achievable, and would not give extra electoral power to the major cities.

And if people don't vote (rural and urban) then they can't complain.

As far as representation in the Senate and House, I actually think I like the form currently inplace (though maybe the method at which it is acheived is completely wrong....thanks Delay). People directly choose federal, state, and city representatives in and from district for which they have some tie, and are able to keep the needs of their constituents in mind (if not they are outta there....Texas being another good example).

EDIT: Stupid denoir beat me to my points. mad_o.giftounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this, dunno where to put it,

EDIT

Removed link as after lookin at some of the site content after the video, I thougt Placebo will slap my wrists,, sorry,,

delete this please,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Republicans will accept this. After all, this is cutting funding to miltiary which is really unpatriotic...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/12/base.closings/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A coming round of military base closures will save the U.S. military nearly $50 billion over over two decades, but will be less extensive once thought, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday.

Rumsfeld is scheduled Friday to present the Pentagon's recommended list of installations to be closed to lawmakers and the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

He kept a tight lid on details of the much-anticipated list, but said it would contain fewer names than expected since additional space will be needed to house U.S. troops now deployed overseas.

"Nonetheless, the changes that will occur will affect a number of communities, communities that have warmly embraced nearby military installations for a good many years, indeed in some case, decades," he said.

"The department will take great care to work with these communities with the respect that they have earned, and the government stands ready with economic assistance."

The closures will save the Pentagon more than $5 billion a year and will produce a net savings of $48 billion over 20 years, Rumsfeld said.

The military has carried out four previous rounds of base closings since 1988. The Pentagon estimates those closures have saved about $40 billion so far.

The nine-member base-closing commission, known as BRAC, is led by former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi.

It will review the Pentagon's recommendations and send them, along with any changes, to the White House by September 8.

The president has until September 23 to approve or reject the list without making changes; if approved, it goes to Congress for a vote.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the closures were designed in conjunction with efforts to turn the U.S. armed services into lighter, more agile forces.

The closure of several bases is "a necessary part of that," he said.

"It is integral to our ability to structure ourselves to be able to defend this country well into the future," Myers said.

personally i agree with the move. if they can redirect the revenue and have better flexible structure, it would serve better.

oohh..2 more

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....ng_dc_1

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army will allow recruits to sign up for just 15 months of active-duty service, rather than the typical four-year enlistment, as it struggles to lure new soldiers amid the Iraq war, a general said on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, U.S. Army Recruiting Command head, also said this was "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer Army," with the war causing concern among potential recruits and their families and the economy offering civilian job prospects.

America abolished the draft in 1973 during the tumult of the Vietnam War era and has since relied on a military made up exclusively of volunteers.

Rochelle said the Army this week expanded nationwide a pilot program in place since October 2003 in 10 cities offering recruits the option of a 15-month active-duty enlistment.

of course, what they don't say is that there is something called stop-loss, which prevents soldiers from finishing there enlistments for sometime. wink_o.gif

http://news.yahoo.com/s....friends

Quote[/b] ]About a third of the 152 adult guests who slept at the White House or Camp David last year were fundraisers or donors to President Bush's campaigns, but at least half of those also are family or old friends.

ADVERTISEMENT

The guest lists, released Wednesday by the White House at the request of USA TODAY and the Associated Press, also include many family members, administration officials and politicians. The only non-political celebrity is golfer Ben Crenshaw, a Bush friend and donor who spent the night at the White House with his wife, Julie. (Related link: Complete guest list)

The guest list at Camp David was the most exclusive. The 64 people who stayed there were family, staffers or old friends. The White House releases guest lists about once a year. Because Bush's ranch near Crawford, Texas, is private property, the White House does not share the names of his guests there.

Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan watchdog group, said that while the practice of inviting donors to spend the night at the White House and the presidential retreat isn't new, it doesn't look any better than when it sparked a scandal during the Clinton administration.

"It sounds like to a certain degree the White House and Camp David are being used as they have been for quite a while - as a way to reward fundraisers and big givers," Noble said. "It's similar to what we saw in the Clinton White House," when Clinton was attacked for allegedly trading White House sleepovers for campaign donations.

"These are members of the president's family and people he considers friends, many of them longtime friends that go back three or four decades," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Many of those are also people that actively supported him in the campaign."

So where is the uproar? When Clinton does it, it's an apocalypse, and when Bush does it, it's....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you hate america Ralph? wink_o.gif

One note on the base closures, one of the areas considering to be shut down is the Army War College, where most generals (like Schwarkopf) teach and can reside. Course if the current war is anything to go by, they might need to change the curriculum anyway.

I don't know if the Air War College in Montgomery is still open. My dad attended that for a year or so (when I was in 4th grade). It was quite interesting because Air Force officers from all around the world would attend, and I got to meet some very interesting people at a young age. I became quite cozy with a family from Kuwait (this is about 1983 or so), and they were kind enough to give my brother and I a full get up of an Arabian mans outfit (don't know the name sorry...the white kind with the headress) as a gift. My brother and I introduced the Kuwaiti kids to Halloween. They loved it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]and they were kind enough to give my brother and I a full get up of an Arabian mans outfit (don't know the name sorry...the white kind with the headress) as a gift.

The robes called a 'Thoob' (well not exactly that and i dont know how to pronounce/write it in english it cant be done as the letter used here has no subsitute in english crazy_o.gif ) , the head gear is called Ghutra and Hagal (the scarf and round tube to hold it).

Did you ever wear it though biggrin_o.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I did some more digging in to George Bush Juniors time in the National Guard.

Shockingly it now appears that the medical George Bush Junior did not attend, was to assess if he was mentally competent to be in charge of nuclear weapons. In the light of his current position this is a truly terrifying revelation.

Quote[/b] ]Bush's partial history

Stringent military screening program may explain gaps on president's record

Bill Morlin and Karen Dorn Steele

Staff writers

Military rules used in 1974 to ground two Washington Air National Guard airmen with access to nuclear weapons also applied to a Texas Air National Guard unit where Lt. George W. Bush was a fighter pilot.

Some military researchers and a former Texas Guard lieutenant colonel believe the stringent regulations -- known as the Human Reliability Program -- may have been invoked to stop Bush from flying Texas Air National Guard jets in 1972.

Bush's military service more than 30 years ago during the Vietnam War has been an issue since his first campaign for president. More recently, some researchers and national media outlets have been investigating the period from May 1, 1972, to April 1, 1973, when Bush left his unit in Texas and moved to Alabama.

Bush's military records from that period are spotty, and have led some to suggest he was avoiding his Guard obligations.

The Boston Globe, on the forefront of the issue, reported Feb. 12 that Bush's acknowledged 1972 suspension from flight status for failing to take a required physical should have generated an investigation and subsequent trail of documents, which have not been found.

To address critics, the White House released Bush's military records in mid-February, asserting he left his Texas Air National Guard squadron two years before the end of his enlistment because he was no longer needed to fly jets.

But if the human reliability rules were invoked, as they were in thousands of other cases, Bush may not have voluntarily stopped flying.

There is no mention of the Human Reliability Program in the documents released by the White House...

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breakin....1401040

We already know that George Bush Junior froze in terror when 9/11 took place unable to make command decisions.

The question then has to be asked was this possible mental instability known to other members of TBA?

It is now a requirement to see George Bush Junior's medical record to see if the assessment took place and if so what where its findings.

If the assessment did not take place; what were the reasons that it did not take place?

Without doubt if as seems possible he avoided the assessment it becomes imperative the assessment take place now in the light of his current position.

If the man was mentally unfit to be near nukes as a pilot during his time in a Champaign squadron he is doubly so now, with his finger on the big red button.

A Very Worried Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]and they were kind enough to give my brother and I a full get up of an Arabian mans outfit (don't know the name sorry...the white kind with the headress) as a gift.

The robes called a 'Thoob' (well not exactly that and i dont know how to pronounce/write it in english it cant be done as the letter used here has no subsitute in english crazy_o.gif ) , the head gear is called Ghutra and Hagal (the scarf and round tube to hold it).

Did you ever wear it though biggrin_o.gif .

I wore it all the time actually...first couple times they had to help me biggrin_o.gif

Man that thing was comfy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]and they were kind enough to give my brother and I a full get up of an Arabian mans outfit (don't know the name sorry...the white kind with the headress) as a gift.

The robes called a 'Thoob' (well not exactly that and i dont know how to pronounce/write it in english it cant be done as the letter used here has no subsitute in english  crazy_o.gif ) , the head gear is called Ghutra and Hagal (the scarf and round tube to hold it).

Did you ever wear it though  biggrin_o.gif .

I wore it all the time actually...first couple times they had to help me biggrin_o.gif

Man that thing was comfy...

Yeah its comfy because its a simple overall , no pants/belts crap to tighten the waste up. However people do tend to wear pajamas underneath just incase wink_o.gif .

I take it you dont wear them much now , i mean you'd be taken in immediately by the Dept. of Homeland Security and whisked away to Guantanamo for interrogation ....

*Misterrrr Akira we've been keeping on eye on you for sometime now , with your posts on the flashpoint1985 forum and your dressing we believe your about to plan a ..... attack*

blues.gif

P.S: That oddly sounds like Agent smith's neo interrogation scene tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have by Arab robe and headress (I have two...the red and white checkered type and the pure white headdress) also. I wear it once in awhile to freak people out at school. lol

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]One could on the other hand say that today it is irrelevant thanks to the TV, internet etc. One could also argue that the counties are far too large for the people there to personally know the candidates.

I don't think in Britain the constituenties (spelling?) are that large really. I know my local one is quite small, and the MP has meetings about once every 3 days and anyone can go along. Also the meetings change location so everybody can go.

I'm against a popular vote by doing this, parties such as the BNP would get seats in the commons, although this could be seen as the percentage of people have what views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bf6dcbe2-c3da-11d9-a56d-00000e2511c8.html

Quote[/b] ]Mexico furious at tough US law on migrants

By John Authers in Mexico City and Edward Alden in Washington

Published: May 13 2005 19:27 | Last updated: May 13 2005 19:27

Mexico has reacted furiously to a bill signed into law by the US this week that would fund a border wall and prevent illegal Mexican migrants from obtaining US driving licences.

President Vicente Fox said he would lodge a diplomatic complaint, and was considering complaints to multilateral bodies if Mexico could not unable to resolve the problem bilaterally.

In the US, leaders of the Mexican community threatened to strike to send a message to US employers that they could not survive without cheap Mexican labour.

Santiago Creel, Mexico's interior secretary, said the “Real ID†law was “negative, inconvenient, and obstructionistâ€.

“Building walls doesn't help anyone build a good neighbourhood,†he said. “Taking away the possibility of obtaining driving licences for people who are working in legal jobs, who pay their taxes there, who send remittances home here, seems to us to be an extreme measure, particularly given the new understanding that we thought we had after the re-election of President Bush.â€

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, mayor of Mexico City, supported Mr Fox's stance. He said the problem of growing immigration could be “resolved by encouraging development in Mexico and Central America, not by building walls and using the border controlâ€.

Since 2002, Mexico has adopted a popular policy of issuing undocumented labourers with consular identity cards, which are accepted as proof of identity by many US states for issuing driving licences, and for opening bank accounts. Under the new law, this would no longer be possible. The immigration provisions approved by Congress were attached by House Republicans to a bill that will provide more than $80bn for the war in Iraq this year, giving lawmakers little choice but to support it.

The White House, which at first opposed the new restrictions, supported them when it became clear they would pass Congress in spite of administration opposition.

President George W. Bush has said he wants to deal with illegal immigration by creating a temporary guest worker programme. But many Republicans are using the anxiety about terrorism to push for a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants ("people" in that sentence) and legal jobs should not be used in the same sentence. Anyway, get your new ID cards in 2008 if the law is not declared unconstitutional or something... blues.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to your stark realization of just how many jobs are taken by illegal (and yes they are people) aliens and how much our economy depends on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I look forward to your stark realization of just how many jobs are taken by illegal (and yes they are people) aliens and how much our economy depends on them.

I know..bah. They are still illegal in this country. Anyway, I just like advocates you call illegals by more pc terms (migrants) or try to blend legal immigration and illegal immigration. I love how Mexico is screaming bloody murder because of the act.

They are not nazis! But, people with different ideas from the norm.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....topNews

Quote[/b] ]

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican President Vicente Fox called recent U.S. measures to stem illegal immigration a step back for bilateral relations on Friday and said Mexican migrants do jobs "that not even blacks want to do."

Fox= desperate and sad

Got to be pc... wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican President Vicente Fox called recent U.S. measures to stem illegal immigration a step back for bilateral relations on Friday and said Mexican migrants do jobs "that not even blacks want to do."

i guess i stand corrected about george bush being the dumbest man in North America. what a very ignorant, stupid and (imo) rascist thing to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican President Vicente Fox called recent U.S. measures to stem illegal immigration a step back for bilateral relations on Friday and said Mexican migrants do jobs "that not even blacks want to do."

i guess i stand corrected about george bush being the dumbest man in North America. what a very ignorant, stupid and (imo) rascist thing to say.

No Bushie still sits at the top , a person who came from such a well established background and still is a moron should be no.1 imo biggrin_o.gif .

But it was a stupid thing to say anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Anyway, I just like advocates you call illegals by more pc terms (migrants) or try to blend legal immigration and illegal immigration

You forget that there are a large number of migrants. The most obvious being migrant farm workers who go from farm to farm working the fields...thus the term migrant.

Quote[/b] ]mi·grant Audio pronunciation of "migrant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mgrnt)

n.

1. One that moves from one region to another by chance, instinct, or plan.

2. An itinerant worker who travels from one area to another in search of work.

Migrant is not a PC term...it is what they are. They work farms from Texas as far as Colorado and Wisconsin, and then some head back to Mexico with the money they made...more then they could have possibly made in Mexico, but still well below poverty here. Some decide to settle in the US, and raise their children in schools that are far above the Mexican schools they would have gone in. Some even have a chance at college because of Texas' 10% rule (which the Repubs are about to kill this session). Some even become citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Migrant is not a PC term...it is what they are. They work farms from Texas as far as Colorado and Wisconsin, and then some head back to Mexico with the money they made...more then they could have possibly made in Mexico, but still well below poverty here. Some decide to settle in the US, and raise their children in schools that are far above the Mexican schools they would have gone in. Some even have a chance at college because of Texas' 10% rule (which the Repubs are about to kill this session). Some even become citizens.

If they legally entered country and USCIS knows about it, I have no problems. Taken from the article:

Quote[/b] ]

Mexico has reacted furiously to a bill signed into law by the US this week that would fund a border wall and prevent illegal Mexican migrants from obtaining US driving licences.

Santiago Creel is trying to blend illegal and legal. Also, I have been told illegals is a bad term. Anyway, why is Mexico afraid of the wall being finished? There are walls and fences at various other points on the border.

Edit: damn power outage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×