|
Post by oblivionn on Oct 16, 2007 22:09:55 GMT -5
"Yea, as I have mentioned in our other lets bash GOP thread: one cannot say what a President or administration has done or worth for decades after the dust clears."
Why not?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 16, 2007 23:58:47 GMT -5
thx for agreeing with most of my points doc . Leme know what ones u got trouble with? I like Dr Savage. I think he is a total nut personally, but politcally he is pretty good imo.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Oct 17, 2007 0:08:13 GMT -5
heh, he is a nut, most people in the genius catagory are at one level or another. I believe him to be one of the most intelligent people on the airwaves, likely the top end. I like when he gets all exasperated and freaks out, not like I could relate to that.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Oct 17, 2007 3:50:44 GMT -5
"Yea, as I have mentioned in our other lets bash GOP thread: one cannot say what a President or administration has done or worth for decades after the dust clears." Why not? Ok, sure people can 'say' what not about a top Governent official (ie: President) but they would be doing so without complete knowledge. Lets use an example, ficticously. You, Satan and I go to see a movie, don't worry, Satan could be the legal guardian The begginning, the first 15 mins or so is action packed, car chases, explosions, even some plot development! As the feature progresses we hit a lull, a slow spot in the movie. what a let down, it continues off on some tangent, could be a subplot, but we do not yet know as these characters and the location is now new from the begginning. A big thunderstorm comes along and the power goes out, we get a free pass to come see another movie some other time as we only saw part of the movie and do not know the effect it will have further down the road on us. Back to the President: we do not know the long lasting impact that will happen in the future because of events set in motion. Like the movie, we can speculate at the ending and decide if we like it or not. We can make a final determination going with only what we have seen ( maybe there were deleted scenes that will really explain that mysterious part we were baffled about- aquait this with government secrets or treaties that will not come to light for decades to come) but would this not be complete.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 17, 2007 13:00:24 GMT -5
Sounds like we watched the Transformers movie. Doc, I blame u for this. I don't wanna give away the end, but lets just say the black transformer dies but the good guys still win after a ton of pointless explotions. Its like American pie meets the Matrix 3.
|
|
capitalistpig
Settler
Those trying to save you from 1984 are leading you into a brave new world.
Posts: 51
|
Post by capitalistpig on Dec 8, 2007 15:19:44 GMT -5
The Bad Seed said: Thats some funny stuff, Satan. Liberals dont care about the future of the country? Lets see, what was GWB's first act of his presidency? Oh, yeah, he pulled out of the Kyoto protocols. Followed by renewed bombing in Iraq, with the strategy of creating a more permanent prescence in the middle east.. (He likes it there, there's oil, and thats all the oil man understands.) He then created short-term, non-sustainable tax breaks, to make us all feel good for a moment, even though these tax breaks weaken us financially for decades to come. I care about the future of my family, so I pay down my debt, I dont create more so my kids have to pay for what I couldn't, but that's exactly what GWB has done. All this is from someone who cares about the future of the country? You very funny man, Satan. You listen to too much Rush Limbaugh. The dudes a fat, bloated windbag who makes his living by feeding your desire to hate. (Mind you, I feel the same about Michael Moore, and every other political extremist, I'm a libertarian, and think all of you suck.) Bottom line is, you cant claim that leadership of the GOP cares about anything but short term profit or political gains, its just not credible. Soo... lemme get this straight, your an environmentalist who dislikes tax cuts, and you think your a libertarian? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA aha hehehe..... ahem..... I think its pretty clear who the windbag here is. Libertarians typically arent fond of Bush, and there are good reasons for this, however the ones that you are claiming, are not Libertarian reasons, they are liberal democrat reasons. Furthermore, you'd have to be a fool to not see how the tax cuts sent our economy off to the races. Have you ever read the Libertarian party platform??? The closest thing we have to a Libertarian who could end up being president is Ron Paul, and his chances are not good at all. Mainly because he accepts the support of the 9/11 truther nutballs, and in so doing, allows himself to be counted among them.
|
|
|
Post by algore on Dec 8, 2007 21:22:54 GMT -5
It makes the politicians try to win all the states. No, it makes them want to win the RIGHT states, mainly the battleground states. I think you wanted to express that politicans have to try to convince every voter to vote for him/her. But, of course, this is not the aim of the system, as the outcome of Bush Jr vs Gore showed, in which the candidate with the higher number of votes lost. Liberals would love to just campain in New York and LA but because of the elecotial system they have to visit the unwashed masses too. If it would give them the majority of the votes, liberals as well as conservatives would mainly campaign in those few decisive states. But it doesn´t, so you find everyone in Iowa at the moment. Though I guess Mr. Huckabee would love to just campaign in Arkansas and Kansas but because of the elecotial system he has to visit the washed masses too. Without this system you end up with mob rule. I know a few states that live under relatively stable conditions without this system. In California they wanna make it to where the electorial votes are devided between the canidates by how many districts they win. Liberals are dead set against this only because it hurts there presidential canidates. Even though liberals do nothing but whine about the electorial college system, when it benifits them, they love it and fight to defend it. Well, if this system change is so good why not make it in the whole country? In Texas, Ohio, New Mexico and everywhere else? This is because Liberals are emotion driven. Especially when they give their long-winded wishy-washy answers... They do not care about the future of the country. They only care if they win the next election. Luckily, winning an election still requires the vote of the people. And winning an election is still partly related to caring about the people´s needs. Liberals care about there own political careers. They will say or do anything to win. From stealing documents to leaking military plans. I remember some incidents where someone promised not to raise taxes, or where someone spied out campaign documents of the other party, or where some people constructed fake proof to justify a war. The liberal canidate is always the one that offers to give the most away for free. I thought liberals are the ones that raise taxes??? Its no prob for them to beacuse its not there money. However if the state makes Trillions of debts instead, as it does at the moment, there is someone who gave the money and who wants it back. Interest has to be paid for all these debts. Debt that isn´t caused for immediate economic recovery, and I haven´t seen the oil prices sinking lately, steals money from future generations and steals money that could be spent for other long-term investions like infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 9, 2007 1:47:57 GMT -5
Hi al, nice to see a new face in the debate. It makes the politicians try to win all the states. simple majority rule becomes mob rule. If you where a true liberal you would be concerned about the protection of the minority. Liberals would love to just campain in New York and LA but because of the elecotial system they have to visit the unwashed masses too. Then it gives the people in New York all the power. I agree the system isn't perfect. It should be updated, but its still the best in the world. Without this system you end up with mob rule. Hitlers Germany was mob rule too. Guess you think that worked well for them. In California they wanna make it to where the electorial votes are devided between the canidates by how many districts they win. Liberals are dead set against this only because it hurts there presidential canidates. Even though liberals do nothing but whine about the electorial college system, when it benifits them, they love it and fight to defend it. What a great idea! We should expand this everywhere. We, here in California, just like to be first See Al, we find a little commen ground, and we can build a bridge to the 21st century This is because Liberals are emotion driven. I gotta say Al, I like that you take me on point by point. Most libs just call me an idiot and leave. They could learn from you. You do make good points for your side They do not care about the future of the country. They only care if they win the next election. Not anymore. Now it requires pandering to interest groups. Instead of drawing the voters in, they go and hunt them down. But you make a fair point good job Liberals care about there own political careers. They will say or do anything to win. From stealing documents to leaking military plans. I'm not smart enough to know who your talkin about with this, but I totally bet its a republican because a liberal would never promise this, besides, is that the best you got? I think this is Nixon. Ya he was wrong to do what he did. But for the sake argument, you should go with more recent events 1960s was a while ago So you where all for Saddam Hussian going on TV giving lotto lookin checks to the familys of sucide bombers? This reminds me of the day of 9/11 when I thought to myself, along with the rest of america, "good thing Gore lost" The liberal canidate is always the one that offers to give the most away for free. to pay for the stuff they are giving away. Taking from those that work, giving to those that don't. Its no prob for them to beacuse its not there money. talk about them long-winded pointless arguements liberals make eh. I was reffering to how the libs want goverment entitlements for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by algore on Dec 9, 2007 7:36:38 GMT -5
simple majority rule becomes mob rule. If you where a true liberal you would be concerned about the protection of the minority. If you argue that the american system protects minorities by its structure I have to say you are wrong. Except from the few states that divide their electorial votes according relation of overall votes, it is enough to get 50,1% of the votes to get 100% of the electorial votes. A 49,9% minority would get no representation. It does not defend minorities against the (white, protestant?) majority. It protects the rights of the states against the rights of the federal government. A more effective protection of ethnical majorities would be the change to a more diversified representation system, the one californian example you already mentioned, but we already agreed here, which is nice. I agree the system isn't perfect. It should be updated, but its still the best in the world. There will never be a perfect government, but this system also has some great advantages, for example the concentration on political figures that keeps people interested in politics. It´s also great that currently the balance of power between the coastal, liberal-leaning states and the conservative inland states is roughly even. As long as there are always people to watch for the mistakes of the other side no government can get a too dominant share of power. Only in some cases national emergencies the current government might be temporarily granted a somewhat limitless competence which it better not abused. Hitlers Germany was mob rule too. Guess you think that worked well for them. Hitler did not have the simple majority. He even had to form a coalition government to achieve power. The mob of Hitlers rule were his SA- and SS-troops which could be that effective because the state was too weak. No institution dared to show resistance to its infilitration by NSDAP-members.´ Not anymore. Now it requires pandering to interest groups. True, but you see, this argument works for both parties. I don´t argue that democrats are better than republicans but rather they are alike in many aspects. I'm not smart enough to know who your talkin about with this, but I totally bet its a republican because a liberal would never promise this, besides, is that the best you got? I think this is Nixon. Ya he was wrong to do what he did. But for the sake argument, you should go with more recent events 1960s was a while ago So you where all for Saddam Hussian going on TV giving lotto lookin checks to the familys of sucide bombers? This reminds me of the day of 9/11 when I thought to myself, along with the rest of america, "good thing Gore lost" First, I refered to Bush Sr. If it´s the best I´ve got... well you think I try to say that republicans are bad and democrats are good..but this not true, I rather argue that they are very much alike. Politicians in general have their own ways to stay in power or get to power. And this argument is served well if I use examples from a broader time of history, not just the most recent government. You say I should use more recent examples, but I didn´t want to discredit the current government (it does a fairly good job by itself) I wanted to break the black vs white scheme because after all, all politicians are humans. In a way, Clinton´s "I did not have sex with this woman" is on the same level as Bush Sr´s "I will not raise taxes" or Larry Craigs "I am not gay". Btw, there is still no proof for a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. He might have had a little party at 9/11 but he surely didn´t pay for it. The islamic fundamentalists were too much a danger for his own power, especially if you remember the Iran/Iraq-war of 1980 in which Hussein got support from the US because he was a bulwark against the Iranian Mullah-regime. to pay for the stuff they are giving away. Taking from those that work, giving to those that don't. talk about them long-winded pointless arguements liberals make eh. I was reffering to how the libs want goverment entitlements for everyone. You don´t see the benefit of a univeral health care? Or cheaper means of education? There are already too many people that DO work but still can´t affort neither and if you lived in fear of your job getting displaced to Mexico you would be a little less afraid with some little help. But all in all, this topic is too big to discuss here. And it´s a question of principles anyway in which one can hardly convinve the other. I like that you agree with me on some points. It shows that you are not lost on common sense. My generosity will surely come across as arrogance, but I am Al Gore.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 9, 2007 9:53:21 GMT -5
I am utterly amazed TGS calls majority vote "mob rule." No I call it democracy. The Electoral College is just another uesless bureaucracy...... don't you republicans hate bureaucracy?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 9, 2007 12:25:12 GMT -5
I am utterly amazed TGS calls majority vote "mob rule." No I call it democracy. The Electoral College is just another uesless bureaucracy...... don't you republicans hate bureaucracy? Z, America is a republic, not a democracy. Majority rules needs balance. Otherwise the majority can run over the minoritys. The founding fathers made our system to try to balance this. I give you the fact that it is flawed and needs fixin, but a simple nation wide up/down vote wins style will get a Hitler into power. Hitler won the 1933 elecion with 43%. Should 43% of the people choose who the leader is just because he got the most votes? 43% is far from a majority. I agree that the system needs fixing, but I understand why they made it the way they did. Hell, even Clinton got 43% the 1st time he ran.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 9, 2007 13:25:44 GMT -5
simple majority rule becomes mob rule. If you where a true liberal you would be concerned about the protection of the minority. The system spreads the politicians out the way it is now. If majority rules was all that mattered, politicans would only care about the white male vote and the senior citizens I agree that sucks. The system needs fixing. I'de like to see battle ground districts, instead of battle ground states. Majoritys come in may sizes and shapes. Not just race and religion. This is a hard arguement to make. I'm not all that knowagable when it comes to the symantics of this. But I know mob rule is bad Ya, the new California system would be cool IMO. I'de pretty much agree with ya here. I'de hate to see a system where only people in New York or California cared about politics and the rest of the nation just fallowed Hitler won with 43% just like Bill Clinton. They both had more votes then any of the other canidates, so simple majority rule screwed the majority. Hitler used his club members to shout down opposion, much like the liberals (like code pink) do to republicans today. They both seek re-election at all cost You put Clinton's "I didn't not have sex" thing on the same level as Bush 41, "not gunna raise taxes" ? Bush 41 was weak by caving to the liberals and raising taxes, but he wasn't under oath when he lied. The guy was going on TV giving giant lotto lookin checks to the familys of suicide bombers!!!! Just admit that if you where president in 2002/2003, you would of been cool with it. Thank god Al Gore lost or Israel would be done for. to pay for the stuff they are giving away. Taking from those that work, giving to those that don't. Talk about them long-winded pointless arguements liberals make eh. I was reffering to how the libs want goverment entitlements for everyone. No, I see it as a way to trick the American populas into paying for stuff they don't need. A healthcare system that works like the DMV would totally suck. If by cheaper, you mean crappier, because thats what it is. We got a one size fits all, DMV style school system, that sucks money up like it grows on trees. Then turns out graduates that can't read. Or they spell like I do. The goverement needs to get out of the healthcare/education systems Give them voutures to hospitols and schools. But don't let a bunch of politicians run these systems into the ground nonsence, This is the very place this should be discussed. 2 free people, in a free country, debating the issues of our time only make eachother stronger I think its cool if you are really Al Gore. It just proves my point about the power of free debate. I, a shmoe from California, has influenced a major political figure and you have influenced me. Together, we grow stronger. Cheers to ya Al I hope to see you debate here in future topics.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 9, 2007 15:18:11 GMT -5
I am utterly amazed TGS calls majority vote "mob rule." No I call it democracy. The Electoral College is just another uesless bureaucracy...... don't you republicans hate bureaucracy? Z, America is a republic, not a democracy. Majority rules needs balance. Otherwise the majority can run over the minoritys. The founding fathers made our system to try to balance this. I give you the fact that it is flawed and needs fixin, but a simple nation wide up/down vote wins style will get a Hitler into power. Hitler won the 1933 elecion with 43%. Should 43% of the people choose who the leader is just because he got the most votes? 43% is far from a majority. I agree that the system needs fixing, but I understand why they made it the way they did. Hell, even Clinton got 43% the 1st time he ran. lol you're not as conservative as you claim to be... you even call the US a republic -- which it does more closely resemble than a democracy, hence the representative government and not majority rule. Though actually I think you and alot of neo-cons are only pro-electoral college because you clearly would have lost the election to Gore. And before you say it, I'm not a liberal: I'm a moderate with left-leanings. F*ck the black and white, conservative and liberal line in the sand. I'm an individual and I refuse to be categorized in one group or the other. Fascists(gwb neo-cons aka false-conservatives) and commies(che guavera worshipping libs) use those tactics. PS -- here's some good info on electoral colleges, thanks to WikiAnswers:
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Dec 9, 2007 15:46:42 GMT -5
I stand on principles. I won't pretend that America is a democracy. This reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Men In Black. Kay says it all "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it"
It almost worked the other way for Kerry in 2004. I am for balance. I want to see politicans serve all Americans. Not just the ones in battle ground states. But I don't want a wishy-washy public making feel good choices and voting themselfs gifts
Atleast you know where you stand Z. I agree that blindly following either side is bad. Thats why these debates, like this one we are having right now, are so important
Its no secret the electorial college isn't perfect. But without a system like it to maintain balance, a popular interst group could take over the country.
|
|
capitalistpig
Settler
Those trying to save you from 1984 are leading you into a brave new world.
Posts: 51
|
Post by capitalistpig on Dec 9, 2007 16:49:57 GMT -5
I love the way liberals debate, it his rather amusing.
Step 1. Liberal Rant
In step one of the typical debate between a liberal and a conservative, the foolish Lib will attempt to explain what is wrong with the world, and how we need more government to come in and fix it.
Step 2. Conservative response
The second step of this sort of debate is where the conservative individual will break down the liberal rant 1 point at a time, making clear to all the foolishness of said liberal. In most cases the logic of this conservative will be irrefutable, and his or her common sense undeniable. (this is of course assuming you are capable of logic, and are endowed with common sense)
Step 3. Liberal denial
This is where the hilarity ensues. The liberal (unaware that he has already lost the argument) will create a several paragraph addendum to what he said in his original rant. Nothing that was said by the conservative while deconstructing the liberal rant will be refuted. Rather, the liberal will blaze on as if he or she were really just having a conversation with him or herself, completely ignoring the logic and reality that so clearly has already rendered the liberal position dead on arrival.
Oftentimes, step 2 and 3 will be repeated back and forth for hours and sometimes days as a valiant attempt is made to hammer sense into the skulls of these socialists. Occasionally there will be a fourth step during which the conservative will become frustrated from arguing with a parrot, and will simply no longer respond. Unfortunately this is where the liberal decides that he has managed to win the debate against the "neo con fascists". This by itself would not be so bad if it did not have the effect of solidifying these idiotic ideals within the grinch skull (3 sizes to small) of said liberal. Which means it will not be long before the next time we are back at Step 1.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 9, 2007 17:24:19 GMT -5
The Electoral College is just another uesless bureaucracy...... don't you republicans hate bureaucracy? No Way! Hard to turn down an extra 50% income and production in my capital. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 9, 2007 17:41:45 GMT -5
"The Electoral College was devised by the founding fathers as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress. The College currently consists of 538 electors -- based on the total number of Representatives and Senators, plus three District of Columbia electors. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the states and the District of Columbia on the day of the general election. " - National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) website. What is the Electoral College? www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/history.htmlRemember, 200+ years ago it was unreasonable to believe that everyone would be able to reach a place to vote. The IMO the EC allowed for a way to include, to some degree, those that were not in a position to vote.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Dec 9, 2007 17:49:22 GMT -5
It makes the politicians try to win all the states. No, it makes them want to win the RIGHT states, mainly the battleground states. I think you wanted to express that politicans have to try to convince every voter to vote for him/her. But, of course, this is not the aim of the system, as the outcome of Bush Jr vs Gore showed, in which the candidate with the higher number of votes lost. Sick of hearing about Algore and Bush election and the EC results. Both sides were well informed on the rules and how the system works. You don't like it, don't run for office. ALl the sobbing and please pitty us compliants are so self rightous. This is not the only an election has gone to congress for a decision. "The 1888 Presidential election was very close. Democratic party candidate President Grover Cleveland and running mate Allen G. Thurman of Ohio won the popular election by 95,713 votes. President Cleveland, however, was not re-elected because he lost the electoral college vote by 65 votes. Instead Benjamin Harrison, former senator from Indiana and the Grandson of President William Henry Harrison, was elected as the 23rd President of the United States. Today a President must win 270 electoral votes, a majority, to become President. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for Presidential election by the House of Representatives with each State delegation receiving one vote. Twice in our history, the House of Representatives has chosen the President -- Thomas Jefferson's election in 1801 and John Quincy Adams' election in 1825. The first constitutional crisis occurred when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. Even though they were both Republicans and Jefferson was chosen as the Presidential candidate and Burr as the Vice Presidential candidate, it took the House of Representatives 36 successive ballots to finally elect Thomas Jefferson as President. Twenty-four years later, again no candidate received a 131 vote majority of electoral votes needed to become President. In this case, the House of Representatives voted for John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford on the first ballot." -National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Remember: Algore did not invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming. I hear he finally found Manbearpig too.
|
|
capitalistpig
Settler
Those trying to save you from 1984 are leading you into a brave new world.
Posts: 51
|
Post by capitalistpig on Dec 9, 2007 18:39:18 GMT -5
Do not make light of Manbearpig just because he is an inconvenient truth! I am totally serial!!!!! Manbearpig is half man, half bear, and half pig, and all dangerous!
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Dec 10, 2007 1:30:59 GMT -5
I stand on principles. I won't pretend that America is a democracy. This reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Men In Black. Kay says it all "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it" Ah yes the old self-righteous "I'm a man of principles" line. Principled does not equate conservative, and certainly not neo-con. Are you implying that there are not principled liberals? I agree TGS. However only a fraction of the population votes. I believe that people don't think their vote counts toward the national election. It turns voting into "my vote could win the district," and not the election. I personally would like to see the Presidential vote be based on majority. The president is a powerful man, but the illusion is that he runs the country. If that were entirely true, we'd be in a lot worse shape with GWB, imho. Yes nice discussion
|
|