Deadornot 12 Posted June 29, 2005 Even though i voted yes i agree with IYJ's first comment of him being a coward. He even got into the bomb shelter in the basement of the whitehouse when he though a bomb was heading there, it was a cloud. p.s. to BrunoBrimley why did you recently quote a full stop Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IYG Posted June 29, 2005 A)I am not joking. Taft worked hard, not so much in the typical tapioca styled presidential format which people are used to but in a wise and judicial manner. Later (in 1921) he was placed on The United States Supreme Court. Look through your history books and you'll find that if Taft had been Catholic instead of Unitarian he would have been given Sainthood status. Are you forgetting how he governed the Philipines in the early 1900's? B)How dense are you? "Bush is in office because of September 11"? What exactly are you smoking? Bush was elected President, fair and square, the previous November and sworn in during the month of January of 2001, several months prior to the horrors of September 11 which were all courtesy of Bill Clinton who did nothing to stop Bin Laden when he had the chance. Sorry to tell you this but Clinton bombing a toothpaste factory, killing thousands of workers was not exactly a real attempt to stop Bin Laden and so we all suffered because of Clinton. C)Whether or not Americans are the sharpest tools in the box is of no never mind to me. The truth here is we at least have fair and valid elections and therefore we ... wait a minute...did you say I ain't playing with a full deck? Harumph! I don't need to take this type of insult, I know for a fact that I deserve much better insults. Double, even triple, Harumph!!! The US should never have gone to the Phillipines anyway, just because McKinley said God told him to take over them. I meant that Bush was re-elected is because of Septermber 11. Fair and square? I don't remember seeing him win the majority vote. Don't get me started on the stupidity that is the electoral college. When the majority vote can lose, it's not democracy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest House of Nails Posted June 30, 2005 I meant that Bush was re-elected is because of Septermber 11. Fair and square? I don't remember seeing him win the majority vote. Don't get me started on the stupidity that is the electoral college. When the majority vote can lose, it's not democracy. Sorry, but if you don't remember President Bush being re-elected with a majority of the popular vote, you weren't paying attention. He received just under 60 million votes, nearly 4 million more than John Kerry, in winning 51% to 48% of the electorate, while carrying 31 states. As to the idea of a majority vote losing not being a democracy, you are correct. In a pure democracy. The United States is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. For those of you who disagree with Bush (or in Notapotato's case, appear to wish him dead), ask yourselves this: The republicans hold a majority of seats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the Presidency. Still rooting for pure majority rule? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IYG Posted June 30, 2005 I guess I write things too fast and don't think them through. Al Gore had more votes than Bush in the elections. I have no problem with the republicans having control of both houses, that was won through a fair and square majority vote, I only don't like the electoral college system which can allow the "loser" to win. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Guest Posted June 30, 2005 I only don't like the electoral college system which can allow the "loser" to win. I am tempted to agree with you. Then I imagine (the very likely scenario) of a closely contested national election with an initial margin of victory of, say, a million votes. Out of 110+ million cast. That close of a margin could trigger recounts/contested elections at the state level. I'm not anxious to see Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004 on a national scale. I'm also not wild about national elections being decided by the voters of a few COUNTIES, let alone states. Speaking of which, don't let anybody from Cook County (Chicago) get ahold of last year's list. There's enough dead folks on the voter roles there already. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrunoBrimley 83 Posted June 30, 2005 The Electoral College is a vital and important part of American government. Keep in mind it has a great value which should not be diminished under any circumstances, not even at the continued whining bequest of panty-waisted Floridians. Let me remind you all of how and why the Electoral College exists: The Electoral College was created to protect the interests of the small (population small) States such as Rhode Island, Delaware, Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska. The District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) has 3 votes and each State receives 1 vote for each Senator (2 votes total) and one vote each for each of their Congressional Representatives. THe Congressional count per State changes at times due to population shifts. This is why California in 2000 had more votes and clout than the California of 1900. What this boils down to is that states with smaller populations have a louder and more powerful voice than the states with larger populations. Why is this so bothersome to people when it comes to the Electoral College but not a problem when it comes to Congressmen? Think of it. There are places where a Congressman may have a lesser number of constituants than another but the other man or woman is voting on the other side of the aisle and with a different vote being cast. Perhaps the person with the lower constituancy is in favor of a particular bill being passed. Are people outraged by that? How about with Senators? California, New York, Pennsylvania--States wih large populations have the same number of Senators as Wyoming, Vermont and Mane--3 states which have a combined population smaller than any of the first 3 states I listed. This means in the Senate the power is held by places with smaller populations but nobody objects. I daresay the only reason there was an objection of any sort in the year 2000 was a group of wishy-washy folks from Dade County (a heavily Democratic location) were too senile to know how to vote. What was most absurd of course was how the re-count was only going to be in 2 or 3 Florida counties, not the entire state. Good old Democratic style Democracy. The same folks who gave John F. Kennedy a win in Chicago with more votes than they had citizens! Recounts galore have not changed the final tally even with all the dangling chads. Dangling chads cut both ways folks, get over your loss. You'll notice that even when Republicans lost elections by narrow margins they didn't spend the next 4 years whining about it instead of finding a better candidate. That dear people is why Joke Kerry lost in 2004. More reasons? Let's see--oh yeah! Johnny Edwards, a sucrose nightmare. How could the Democrats possibly moan and grown about the Republicans refusing to stop the litigation suits and amounts of those suirs when their own precious little grinning boy was a LITIGATION LAWYER. An ambulance chaser! 4 years the Whinocrats had to get their act together and they failed--more than a little miserabley too. In the past The Electoral College was what decided other elections. John Quincy Adams in 1828, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888. In those cases the outrage did not exist. People understood and accepted the value of The Electoral College, unlike today where we find the average college graduate does not even know who their State Senator or Congressional Representative is. The Electoral College Again, ask yourself, if you are willing to sacrifice the Electoral College are you also prepared to change the number of Senators per state and alter it based on population? Of course not. Think of how lopsided that would become. Look at Ohio in 2004 for further proof of this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bald rick 9 Posted June 30, 2005 You're confusing us with people who care... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrunoBrimley 83 Posted June 30, 2005 You're confusing us with people who care... Believe me when I tell you this-- You care and you know darned well you do as is proven by the very fact that you joined in on this post. Toodles! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,397 Posted June 30, 2005 The American people is the judge of whether the Electoral College makes sense or not. I'm not an American, so I don't care, but I see a few flaws in BrunoBrimley's reasoning. Allocation of seats in Congress is a different problem as election of the President. While there are several hundreds of Representatives and Senators, there's only one President. I see no a priori reason why one person's vote in Presidential elections should weigh more than another's. As I understand it, small states are heavily overrepresented in the Senate, and slightly so in the House of Representatives. With that in mind I don't think weighing the vote in their favour in Presidential election is very useful. The fact that the Electoral College has been around for more than two centuries doesn't imply that it's right. It doesn't mean that is wrong either. I would prefer direct Presidential elections, but I don't think it's the largest problem in the American political system. regards, Hein Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f.u.b.a.r-an-lovin-it 0 Posted June 30, 2005 theres more chance of jesus being resurected than that twat bush being given an air hole to the brain, they say the meek shall inherit the earth, BOLLOCKS, hes the most powerful C-word on the face of the planet and not even god could stop his war machine from engaging in medievel crusades in the name of good will an all that shite. i am with the C-word on this one though i don't fancy his chances with the middle east, look what happened last time the american government stook its greedy noses in sh*t that doesnt concern them, they got the islamic fundamentalists pissed and in turn lost 2000+ inocent lives (9/11). the next time you give somebody weapons to fight your enamy with (russia taliban afghanistan) make sure you have the common courtasy to help them out when the war is over instead of dropping them like a sack of sh*t just because your politicaly embaressed, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Josco 48 Posted June 30, 2005 ......hes the most powerful C-word on the face of the planet and not even god ......... Captain Commander CEO Centurian Crenellated Cool Person Creole Crayfish Crank Crane Courtesan Coward Corposant Corporation Critic Communist Chaplain Cheese biscuit Crocodile Cupboard Cornel Concubine Conscript Corinthian Cretin Creel Corbel C-word Curtain Custodian Czar Currant The list is almost endless............ (Well fairly long) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Josco 48 Posted June 30, 2005 I notice in the last post that C-Word was replaced with C-Word. Clever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrunoBrimley 83 Posted June 30, 2005 I notice in the last post that C-Word was replaced with C-Word. Clever. Judging from the location I would venture to say the word must be curmudgeon; however President Bush is far too young and far too pleasant to be one. No I am sorry to say he is in no way curmudgeonly and for the record neither was his Pap, George the First. Hmm... George W. Bush as a curmudgeon. Well, hopefurly some day that'll happen (somebody will be needed to replace Andy Rooney don't ya know). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IYG Posted June 30, 2005 Just testing something: C-word F**k sh*t Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anubis the Jackal 76 Posted July 1, 2005 Arsecandle fucknuts scunthorpe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Four Horsemen 25 Posted July 1, 2005 There's no need for language like that - my parents used to live in Scunthorpe! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,397 Posted July 1, 2005 Arsecandlefucknuts scunthorpe Ah, modern poetry. Not really my cuppa. regards, Hein Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bald rick 9 Posted July 1, 2005 And not enough syllables to be a haiku either... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Four Horsemen 25 Posted July 1, 2005 So let's get this straight: If you put in F**k, sh*t or C-word it changes it on the filter If you put in fuckbandit, shitshaped or cuntdangler then it lets it through? Sorry about the language, should my mother read this! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 599 Posted July 1, 2005 BrunoBrimley Posted on Jun 30 2005, 03:35 PM The Electoral College is a vital and important part of American government. What a load of tosh! All this talk about George W Bush being the best president and the electoral college being the best way of working out how to elect your leaders. There are many forms of democratic elections - the US form is quite crude and does not allow true representative figures going through the polling booths to be accurately reflected in practice in many cases. The best route in all cases is the starting point of equality - that of... one person/one vote - equal in value and all those votes counted towards only one presidential result. It is my understanding (even after all the Rep' dirty tricks in 2000) Gore won by 500,000 votes throughout the nation. Even the UK system is very poor in assisting minor parties. The French system is much more in tune with my thinking. You have two rounds of elections. The first round top two winners go into the second round and then each candidate will be elected with more than 50% of the popular vote. As for hope in having someone shoot GWB - we all live in hope! however with so much effort placed in his security I'm quite reluctant to add him in my DDP team for next year - I may even drop Cheney as it looks like he is over his heart troubles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Oates 21 Posted July 1, 2005 Leader of the Free World? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest IYG Posted July 1, 2005 Leader of the Free World? Sad to say but the Blair one is funnier and he has a bigger nose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faustus 9 Posted July 2, 2005 bush dead or alive makes no difference...his cronies would still be making lots of money...arms dealers/manufacturers....and not forgetting the oil..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuber Mirum 119 Posted July 2, 2005 BrunoBrimley Posted on Jun 30 2005, 03:35 PM The Electoral College is a vital and important part of American government. What a load of tosh! All this talk about George W Bush being the best president and the electoral college being the best way of working out how to elect your leaders. There are many forms of democratic elections - the US form is quite crude and does not allow true representative figures going through the polling booths to be accurately reflected in practice in many cases. The best route in all cases is the starting point of equality - that of... one person/one vote - equal in value and all those votes counted towards only one presidential result. It is my understanding (even after all the Rep' dirty tricks in 2000) Gore won by 500,000 votes throughout the nation. Even the UK system is very poor in assisting minor parties. The French system is much more in tune with my thinking. You have two rounds of elections. The first round top two winners go into the second round and then each candidate will be elected with more than 50% of the popular vote. As for hope in having someone shoot GWB - we all live in hope! however with so much effort placed in his security I'm quite reluctant to add him in my DDP team for next year - I may even drop Cheney as it looks like he is over his heart troubles. If you take a look at Mr Brimley's highly informative and entertaining posts, you will notice that he is quite a clever chap and has a strong, subtle and very individual sense of humour. He is having us on with all that Bush supporting talk. Think about it. With how much credibility can anyone compliment Bush by perpetually painting him with precisely those qualities which it is clear to the utterest numbskull are the exact diametric opposites of those which he truly posesses? And how many staunch Republicans are there in Michigan anyway? The universe is infinite, and thus it it statistically inevitable that a sheep should have been made pope, or a monkey Mayor of Hartlepool. But I don't believe this one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
