Muenkel 0 #101 November 1, 2003 QuoteWhat's wrong with the Queen? She doesn't use the power of veto (she'd end up leaving a republic if she did) her role is pretty much ceremonial and she has no effect on government policy. Besides I thought the US loved Princess Di or am I missing something? It would be nice if the Queen used some of her billions and helped out some of her starving subjects. She could still live quite comfortably. As for Princess Di, she single-handedly saved the gene pool of that family. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #102 November 1, 2003 QuoteIt would be nice if the Queen used some of her billions and helped out some of her starving subjects Hmmm, I doubt many people in the UK, Canada and Australia are starving. There are developed and wealthy countries other then the US you know... Thinking about it, I would think there are more people living below the poverty line in the US then in some of the countries the Queen is the head of state of...--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #103 November 1, 2003 I've been to England, I never suggested the country was a 3rd world nation. They however do have their share of folks living below the poverty line....as does the U.S. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #104 November 1, 2003 QuoteQuoteYeah, the US constitution isn't bad when it's being used properly. Not so great when even US citizens (and not just those evil terrorist furners) can be detained indefinitely without cause, held without access to a lawyer, and tried in a closed tribunal without full access to the accusations against them. That kind of puts a damper on the whole constitution thing. It's not about the document, it's about the people entrusted with upholding it Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; I beleive we are at war and our public is in danger! Really? I must have missed the declaration of war by the US Congress (US Constitution Section 8). When did it happen? More US citizens being killed by gun accidents than by terrorists suggest that public danger is overrated too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #105 November 1, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhat's wrong with the Queen? She doesn't use the power of veto (she'd end up leaving a republic if she did) her role is pretty much ceremonial and she has no effect on government policy. Besides I thought the US loved Princess Di or am I missing something? It would be nice if the Queen used some of her billions and helped out some of her starving subjects. She could still live quite comfortably. As for Princess Di, she single-handedly saved the gene pool of that family. Chris How do you know she doesn't? Do you expect the same of, say, the Pritzkers, Paul Allen, Bill Gates etc. who have more billions than QE2. Poor people in Canada and UK have far better health care than poor people in the US.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taz 0 #106 November 1, 2003 QuoteDon't be so naive...it makes you look stupid. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me... The (unofficial) recount (undertaken by private interests such as news operations, not the government) happened after Bush became president. Bush became president because the Supreme Court made a decision that refused to allow the actual recount to be made before the declaration of a winner. And anyway, relax, dude. Are you feeling a little defensive?It's the Year of the Dragon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #107 November 1, 2003 QuoteBush became president because the Supreme Court made a decision that refused to allow the actual recount to be made before the declaration of a winner. I think this is not an accurate representation of what happened. There was a declaration of a winner because there was already a recount that was certified per the Florida law by the State Attorney General. The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the re-recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was being conducted without any standard and re-instated the previous certification. Remember how the Fl court instructed the counties to try to determine the INTENT of the voter? The U.S. Supreme Court ruling gave the Florida Court the opportunity to explain/defend their ruling, which they did/could not do. This is what I remember, maybe others with more energy will provide more details. I think the Dem's were trying to steal the election, they felt that any tactic was OK because they felt the popular vote results justified their actions.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lazyfrog 0 #108 November 1, 2003 SYLVESTER STALLONE for president---------- Fumer tue, péter pue ------------- ourson #10, Mosquito Uno, CBT 579 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivejersey 0 #109 November 3, 2003 QuoteSYLVESTER STALLONE for president At least he would be a little bit more comprehensible! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #110 November 3, 2003 No, I am not feeling defensive, but I am frustrated by the left making stupid excuses like "Bush wans't elected...." That is/was a childish comment put out by a bunch of frustrated lefties who don't like the Electoral College. So tough shit to them. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #111 November 3, 2003 QuotePoor people in Canada and UK have far better health care than poor people in the US. See Professor...This is where we differ. This is what I say. Who cares about the Health care system of the UK or Canada... The US is not a socialist society, and the government is not responsible for the people's medical expense, or welfare checks, or unemployment. The fact that we have any of these stupid programs at all is just a friendly perk. So stop bitching. The government doesn't owe you anything other than DEFENSE. I know the Lefties in here can't understand that, and they want to change that, but com'on. You should look up what Socialism is, and what capitalism is. And when you are there find out what the founding principals of the Republic of the United States were. Then, in a short essay, compare your ideas for making this country better to the founding principal of the US and then those of Canada. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #112 November 3, 2003 So. 127 votes and he's a loser. Time will tell. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taz 0 #113 November 3, 2003 QuoteThat is/was a childish comment put out by a bunch of frustrated... [insert LEFTIES or RIGHTIES here] The funny but sometimes ridiculous thing about American politics is the way both sides have equal capacity to spout bulls*&t. Having recently traveled to a few places where democracy is a joke of an idea, I'm happy just to kick back at this point and enjoy the fact that we are allowed to say whatever the hell we want. I'm sure that even if you think of "lefties" as frustrated, stupid, naive, and generally clueless, you will agree that it is a good thing you're allowed to say so out loud without fear of persecution. Surely that's one thing we can find in common... Viva la revolucion. -TIt's the Year of the Dragon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivejersey 0 #114 November 3, 2003 Left / right. Who cares. The man is still a duufus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taz 0 #115 November 3, 2003 Tell us what you really think! It's the Year of the Dragon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #116 November 3, 2003 QuoteQuotePoor people in Canada and UK have far better health care than poor people in the US. See Professor...This is where we differ. This is what I say. Who cares about the Health care system of the UK or Canada... The US is not a socialist society, and the government is not responsible for the people's medical expense, or welfare checks, or unemployment. The fact that we have any of these stupid programs at all is just a friendly perk. So stop bitching. The government doesn't owe you anything other than DEFENSE. I know the Lefties in here can't understand that, and they want to change that, but com'on. You should look up what Socialism is, and what capitalism is. And when you are there find out what the founding principals of the Republic of the United States were. Then, in a short essay, compare your ideas for making this country better to the founding principal of the US and then those of Canada. Chris I was making a statement of fact, not policy. Your argument is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taz 0 #117 November 3, 2003 If only the democrats in the US could take your approach to right-wing arguments: unfortunately, had the relevant presidential candidates been on this thread, they would have all gone off to write an essay as assigned. Hence my frustration with the opposition, which should be kicking some ass but isn't. -TIt's the Year of the Dragon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivejersey 0 #118 November 3, 2003 But is you dont agree with Bush your unpatriotic!! How can you expect a reasonable opposition stance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,099 #119 November 3, 2003 QuoteNo, I am not feeling defensive, but I am frustrated by the left making stupid excuses like "Bush wans't elected...." That is/was a childish comment put out by a bunch of frustrated lefties who don't like the Electoral College. So tough shit to them. Chris Not long ago it was the Right that despised the electoral college, because they claimed it gave too much clout to the big states like California and New York. Why do you like the electoral college? What benefits does it have over a popular vote election?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taz 0 #120 November 3, 2003 QuoteBut is you dont agree with Bush your unpatriotic!! Dude, that's why I was more comfortable moving to Africa than trying to stay alive in the USA while insisting on calling the president "Monkey Boy". I like to indulge in my fair share of name calling, but I'm safer doing it in the rest of the world where almost everyone agrees with me Funny thing is, I AM patriotic: just not pro-Bush. I've had my own annoyances as an American living overseas--had my life threatened by someone who wanted to "prove a point" about innocent civilians being killed in Iraq, been told that it's nothing personal, but America should be blown up completely, been told that Bush's head should be paraded in Washington on the point of a sharp stick. Oh yeah--and have vehemently disagreed with the characterization of Bush as a successor to Hitler. Being outside of the USA when the Iraq war started sucked more than anything--I disagreed with the war, but also with the fanatics on the other end yelling about Zionist evil plots. Which brings us to the obvious question, why is there no visible, reasonable opposition? Where I stand, all I see or hear about is Bush's voice-over saying "everything's fine" with images of US soldiers being attacked, followed by knee-jerk anti-American bulls*&t. Truly, it seems like the soldiers are getting the rawest deal of all. If there's anything that makes me feel ultra-patriotic, it's the thought of Americans being killed in the line of duty because the guys who make foreign policy can't pull it together. The opposition needs to get off its fat lazy behind, grow some balls, and start telling the truth about alternatives to the senseless quest for corporate world domination. And THAT is what I really think! Viva la revolucion. -TIt's the Year of the Dragon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #121 November 3, 2003 QuoteQuoteNo, I am not feeling defensive, but I am frustrated by the left making stupid excuses like "Bush wans't elected...." That is/was a childish comment put out by a bunch of frustrated lefties who don't like the Electoral College. So tough shit to them. Chris Kallend said: Not long ago it was the Right that despised the electoral college, because they claimed it gave too much clout to the big states like California and New York.*** The Electoral College works for the same reason each State is only allowed 2 Senators. I find it laughable that some fail to comprehend this simple concept. When you say "The Right" to whom are you speaking? Are you saying "everyone" on the right despised the Electoral College, most on the right despised it or a few on the right despised if? Do you have any facts to back up your statement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites storm1977 0 #122 November 3, 2003 Well Doc, The reasons I like the electoral college: 1: The idea that the masses are too stupid to make an educated decision still holds up in my mind. So, allowing the delegates to actually vote differently than the states actual vote I feel is a good idea. I know this is scary, because it gives a lot of power to a single person, however, if there was a clear victor in a major election, it would take several Conspiring delegates to change the outcome, and I am just not a paranoid conspiracy theory type of guy. Now, let's say in FL, the delegates felt there was an injustice done, and voted for Gore instead of Bush. (personally at the time I was rooting for Gore and was hoping for this outcome) People would have gone crazy, I will give you that, but I truly believe our forefathers were a great deal smarter than most of us and knew what they were doing. I don't follow the constitution blindly, but I do trust the ideas it was based on. 2. (Opinion) People that bitch about the Electoral college process should NOT run for President. Right or Left, the EC is the way it is, deal with it, don't bitch if you don't like the outcome. 3. The point has already been made, but the design of the is country was for a bunch of commonly united but sovereign states. So, it was understood that, through the passage of time these states could have great differences in their own political beliefs and ideas. Since the design of this country was initially intended to have little Federal influence over the states, the EC was inacted to combat large states from effectively causing a major impact on the presidency which intern would affect all of the states to some degree. So, by having the EC, Major states do not throw off the balance of the system too much. Do they have more influence? Yes, but not as much as they would in a popular vote. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,058 #123 November 3, 2003 >The Electoral College works for the same reason each State is only allowed 2 Senators. It doesn't really work like that. Each state does not get an equal number of electoral votes. It is more closely akin to state representatives, where population determines how many votes each state gets. (In fact, the # of votes is equal to the # of representatives plus two, or the # of representatives plus the # of senators.) That's why California has 54 electoral votes and Delaware has 3. >Are you saying "everyone" on the right despised the Electoral > College, most on the right despised it or a few on the right despised > if? From what I can tell, any group that wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote hates the electoral college system. It happens with some regularity on both sides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,058 #124 November 3, 2003 >The US is not a socialist society . . . Yeah, it is, to a degree. Roads, municipal sewers, the Center for Disease Control, Air Traffic Control, FEMA, welfare, medicare, police, the FDA - all of these are entities that could be private that instead the government runs for benefit of society. You may disagree that the US should fund the CDC (for example) but that doesn't change the fact that the US _does_ provide government services that are effectively socialist. >You should look up what Socialism is, and what capitalism is. And > when you are there find out what the founding principals of the > Republic of the United States were. Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. As to founding principals: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Italics added. Having the government of the United States passing laws that promote the general welfare of the people of the US gives rise to the Work Projects Administration, the interstate system, the CDC etc and is a distinctly socialist idea. The strength of the United States is that we pick and choose which ideas we want from socialism, capitalism, fascism, anarchy, pure democracy, representative government etc. The sum of all those things keeps any one philosophy from dominating, and that keeps us flexible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jlmiracle 7 #125 November 3, 2003 Okay, after this weekend - peewee just lost my vote. I understand this happens to other dz's, but it is wrong and it interfers with my freedom. So the Pres is in Mississippi and some crazy women drives into the building where he is with her 3 children, and is taken away kicking and screaming (she had a nervous breakdown) the SS were holding her young children at gunpoint.. Now shortly after that happened, we are climbing to altitude and around 9000 ft, Mike tells us we have to land. Okay so the restrictions are 30 miles out. We are 40 miles out. Their problem was not flying the plane, but dropping the jumpers. Some SS guy thinks it is possible for us to float 40 miles into the wind and do something. So on the news that night the head of the SS states that the president was NEVER in any danger. So why did they stop us? I'm pissed off cause I don't like landing in planes, any of them. They shut us down for an hour. I know that's nothing compared to other dz's that are close to his vacation spots. If the goverment officials can't travel without disrupting the general public, then they don't need to travel. Done whinning. Judy p.s I thought this was a better place to rant then to send a letter to the SS explaining to them their lack of common sense.Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 5 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
storm1977 0 #122 November 3, 2003 Well Doc, The reasons I like the electoral college: 1: The idea that the masses are too stupid to make an educated decision still holds up in my mind. So, allowing the delegates to actually vote differently than the states actual vote I feel is a good idea. I know this is scary, because it gives a lot of power to a single person, however, if there was a clear victor in a major election, it would take several Conspiring delegates to change the outcome, and I am just not a paranoid conspiracy theory type of guy. Now, let's say in FL, the delegates felt there was an injustice done, and voted for Gore instead of Bush. (personally at the time I was rooting for Gore and was hoping for this outcome) People would have gone crazy, I will give you that, but I truly believe our forefathers were a great deal smarter than most of us and knew what they were doing. I don't follow the constitution blindly, but I do trust the ideas it was based on. 2. (Opinion) People that bitch about the Electoral college process should NOT run for President. Right or Left, the EC is the way it is, deal with it, don't bitch if you don't like the outcome. 3. The point has already been made, but the design of the is country was for a bunch of commonly united but sovereign states. So, it was understood that, through the passage of time these states could have great differences in their own political beliefs and ideas. Since the design of this country was initially intended to have little Federal influence over the states, the EC was inacted to combat large states from effectively causing a major impact on the presidency which intern would affect all of the states to some degree. So, by having the EC, Major states do not throw off the balance of the system too much. Do they have more influence? Yes, but not as much as they would in a popular vote. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #123 November 3, 2003 >The Electoral College works for the same reason each State is only allowed 2 Senators. It doesn't really work like that. Each state does not get an equal number of electoral votes. It is more closely akin to state representatives, where population determines how many votes each state gets. (In fact, the # of votes is equal to the # of representatives plus two, or the # of representatives plus the # of senators.) That's why California has 54 electoral votes and Delaware has 3. >Are you saying "everyone" on the right despised the Electoral > College, most on the right despised it or a few on the right despised > if? From what I can tell, any group that wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote hates the electoral college system. It happens with some regularity on both sides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #124 November 3, 2003 >The US is not a socialist society . . . Yeah, it is, to a degree. Roads, municipal sewers, the Center for Disease Control, Air Traffic Control, FEMA, welfare, medicare, police, the FDA - all of these are entities that could be private that instead the government runs for benefit of society. You may disagree that the US should fund the CDC (for example) but that doesn't change the fact that the US _does_ provide government services that are effectively socialist. >You should look up what Socialism is, and what capitalism is. And > when you are there find out what the founding principals of the > Republic of the United States were. Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. As to founding principals: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Italics added. Having the government of the United States passing laws that promote the general welfare of the people of the US gives rise to the Work Projects Administration, the interstate system, the CDC etc and is a distinctly socialist idea. The strength of the United States is that we pick and choose which ideas we want from socialism, capitalism, fascism, anarchy, pure democracy, representative government etc. The sum of all those things keeps any one philosophy from dominating, and that keeps us flexible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #125 November 3, 2003 Okay, after this weekend - peewee just lost my vote. I understand this happens to other dz's, but it is wrong and it interfers with my freedom. So the Pres is in Mississippi and some crazy women drives into the building where he is with her 3 children, and is taken away kicking and screaming (she had a nervous breakdown) the SS were holding her young children at gunpoint.. Now shortly after that happened, we are climbing to altitude and around 9000 ft, Mike tells us we have to land. Okay so the restrictions are 30 miles out. We are 40 miles out. Their problem was not flying the plane, but dropping the jumpers. Some SS guy thinks it is possible for us to float 40 miles into the wind and do something. So on the news that night the head of the SS states that the president was NEVER in any danger. So why did they stop us? I'm pissed off cause I don't like landing in planes, any of them. They shut us down for an hour. I know that's nothing compared to other dz's that are close to his vacation spots. If the goverment officials can't travel without disrupting the general public, then they don't need to travel. Done whinning. Judy p.s I thought this was a better place to rant then to send a letter to the SS explaining to them their lack of common sense.Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
