My point is that bush wasn’t elected by the people. I don’t recall people ever voting to have the electoral college put in place.
“My point is that bush wasn’t elected by the people. I don’t recall people ever voting to have the electoral college put in place.”
I thought you knew how the Electoral College worked. It is indeed a democratic process.
Whether or not you voted for the Electoral College doesn’t change the fact that it is how the American electoral system works. So it doesn’t change the fact that Bush was elected.
You can certainly claim you disagree with how the American democratic system works. But claiming Bush wasn’t elected by it is simply incorrect.
Is that a roman catholic priest protesting the war with saddam? hahahahahahaha
I do disagree with the electoral college.
Just one more thing. You seem to think that america is a democracy. It is actually a republic. If you don’t belive me, just listen to the pledge of allegiance.
I’m using democracy in the general sense. I don’t think there’s a literal direct democracy anywhere in the world, and hasn’t been for a very long time.
Not since ancient Athens.
BRADEN
Why is it on one hand you say that the Kyoto Protocl is useless c’os it’ll make millions (and what an exaggeration that is!!) unemployed and then you follow on by saying that Green poloyics is a monkey maker. Which is it to be?? Environmentalism is profitable or not??
As Shaolin says Gore did get more votes and Bush’s election (and an insult to say that it was!!) was the dubious process in history presidential history.
We sup[plied him with arms regardless of what his intentions were as long as they weren’t going to be pointed back at us. As ever politicians with friends or their own hands in distributions et al of arms are interested in one thing only MONEY. If you don’t accept that then I wonder if this term of ignorant people that you foistered on me should not be returned to sender eh??
True you Braden can say that Bush is not a crook and what a stylishly mature answer it was of you to give as opposed to being honest and openly admitting that your President is far from virginal.
No he shouldn’t initiate self-defeating policies at all, but what he should do is initiate policies that will work for his people and not for his own benefit. He is the President of the United States of America for one purpose only and that is to serve the people via his government not abuse his power, like his father and Reagan did.
How much money have you sent to Africa, for instance, to help combat the Aids epidemic? I must surely imagine it’s less than what Bush has.
I will ignore this quote because i cannot believe that this is meant to be the childish playground infant humour that it purposts to be. Do you seriously expect an individual to match the head of a country’s charity from a financial level? Your comment is is so crass.
Going on holiday for manoths and the commencement of one’s primary term of office to the white house presidency is totally innapropriate especially as there were so many pressing issues at hand. All he could do was hide away, wheres the stealth in that? Holidays when they have been earnt are fine, but when you’ve been offered a job and you’ve accepted it do you with barely any notice at all decided to take a few months worth of holiday off?? If you do then I suspect you are unemployed/unemployable by now.
The Christian fundamentalism that wreaks in the American education system of creationism and the denial of Dwarwinist theories that science has long held to be the origins of life, and certain fundamentalists that are curbing it in schools in the US. The same fundamentalists that are supported by the Republican government. The same fundamentalists that believe that freedom of speech in music is to be condemned and that censorship to the arts is something that the church have a hand in.
Your views are nearly as poor and blinkered as Sapphyre’s, maybe even worse. When you direct the “Ignorant people” quote to me without effort it seems to bounce back into your court.
The Cossacks were a democracy. They say the first parliament was in Iceland, called the “allthing” I believe the Cossacks called their democratic council the “Rukh”. Look how much the american knows!
Look how much the amrican knows! But look at the “poor” sentence structure! I’ll clarify… The “allthing” was in Iceland, the “Rukh” in the Ukraine. There, now go use your knowledge to destroy the enemy.
Actually, the electoral college served, and CONTINUES to serve, a very important purpose.
It’s a weighting system. It is part of what ensures that heavily populated states cannot run roughshod over the more lightly populated ones. It helps guarentee that Presidential Campaigns will not ignore the smaller states.
Without the Electoral college, Presidential Campaigns wouldn’t pay much attention to places like Minnesota, South Dakota. IN some cases, they still don’t pay that much attention to them, but without the electoral college, who’d bother campaigning much in middle america? Sure if it was strategically important for some specific reason, but in general, it’d be somewhat wasted effort when you can get more bang for your buck in NYC or San Diego.
They also would tend to owe these populated states somewhat for their election, and the number of total representatives is now fixed to avoid a truly unwieldy deliberative body. The number of reps you have is based on the portion of the U.S. population you have, which changes with the Census. It’s not “1 rep for every 100,000 people,” anymore.
Representatives from heavily populated states, therefore, would wield disproportionate bargaining power under a system without the electoral college because if we directly elected the president, then all that matters is the final popular total. Representatives from heavily populated areas would be able to deliver more votes as a block–they can do so NOW.
So, am I going to adminstratively favor California, or Montana?
Repulsive Monkey
“Why is it on one hand you say that the Kyoto Protocl is useless c’os it’ll make millions…”
I didn’t say it was useless. I said it would have a severe and direct cost to the working class of America.
“c’os it’ll make millions (and what an exaggeration that is!!) unemployed”
Is that an exaggeration? Maybe you can quote a figure you’re more comfortable with. I admit to estimating this figure, but this is how I did it:
The estimate for Canada was 400,000 unemployed. Proportionally, that would make 3.6 million unemployed for America. I admit, a clumsy estimate. But if I went 3x overboard, it’s still over a million jobs.
“and then you follow on by saying that Green poloyics is a monkey maker.”
I said it could make people money. Do you dispute this?
“Which is it to be?? Environmentalism is profitable or not??”
a) “The Kyoto Accord” isn’t synonymous with “Environmentalism.”
b) The Kyoto accord would both make some people money and cost alot of people jobs. The two aren’t contrary.
“As Shaolin says Gore did get more votes and Bush’s election (and an insult to say that it was!!) was the dubious process in history presidential history.”
What was dubious about it? It worked exactly the way it was supposed to work.
Like I told Shaolin: Claim you don’t like the American electoral process if you want, but don’t claim Bush wasn’t elected by it - that is simply incorrect.
“We supplied him with arms regardless of what his intentions were as long as they weren’t going to be pointed back at us.”
Wrong. We supplied him with arms for a very specific intention. You don’t honestly think we just randomly gave him weapons, do you?
“As ever politicians with friends or their own hands in distributions et al of arms are interested in one thing only MONEY.”
I couldn’t make any sense of this sentance.
“True you Braden can say that Bush is not a crook and what a stylishly mature answer it was of you to give as opposed to being honest and openly admitting that your President is far from virginal.”
a) He’s not my president.
b) Since when was his virginity being discussed? 
c) You’re the one who asked the question. If it’s worthy of being mocked as ‘stylishly mature’, remember you’re the one who brought started that line of questioning.
“No he shouldn’t initiate self-defeating policies at all, but what he should do is initiate policies that will work for his people and not for his own benefit.”
And that’s what he (and many others) believe he is doing.
You could well disagree with him. You could well be right. That doesn’t change his (or others) beliefs though.
“I will ignore this quote because i cannot believe that this is meant to be the childish playground infant humour that it purposts to be.”
Maybe you shouldn’t ignore it. It was brought up to challenge your claim that he isn’t compassionate.
“Do you seriously expect an individual to match the head of a country’s charity from a financial level?”
No, I expect you to provide a basis for your comment. You haven’t.
“Going on holiday for manoths and the commencement of one’s primary term of office to the white house presidency is totally innapropriate especially as there were so many pressing issues at hand.”
Actually, it’s fairly common. The ‘regime’ doesn’t shift immediately, so there is often little to do until it does. The leaving ‘regime’ tends to vote against anything you try to do until they are shifted out, just wasting tax payer money.
“All he could do was hide away, wheres the stealth in that?”
Again, I couldn’t make any sense of this sentance.
“The Christian fundamentalism that wreaks in the American education system of creationism and the denial of Dwarwinist theories that science has long held to be the origins of life, and certain fundamentalists that are curbing it in schools in the US.”
You’re incorrect on a number of accounts.
a) Christian fundamenalism isn’t opposed to Darwinism.
b) Darwinism is taught in the American education system.
c) Just as an aside, Darwinism isn’t about the origin of life.
“The same fundamentalists that are supported by the Republican government.”
People with certain religious beliefs aren’t allowed to participate in democracy?
“Your views are nearly as poor and blinkered as Sapphyre’s, maybe even worse… When you direct the ‘Ignorant people’ quote to me without effort it seems to bounce back into your court.”
So you claim. It would be a more effective claim if you backed it up though.
P.S. Please refrain from ad hominems, it’s really not very classy.
Braden,
Stop it. You’re actually arguing properly. There are only a few people on this board willing to do that with you. I’m one of them, and I eventually just get tired of typing 
You’ll make no headway here. They’d rather splutter and rant than provide evidence. It’s much easier to do, ala Rush Limbaugh, than real political commentary, ala William Raspberry or George Will.
We’ll have to find something we disagree on. 
Actually, darwinism was being phased out of some schools in the mid-west (I think it was in kansas). In place of evolution, they are starting to teach creationism (the type that believes that everything on earth has always existed as it is today). The local and federal government was supporting them in this. I agree that people with certain religious views should not be barred from politics, but when their religious beliefs start affecting their law making decisions, it is a violation of the seperation of church and state.
“Actually, darwinism was being phased out of some schools in the mid-west…”
Recently?
“when their religious beliefs start affecting their law making decisions, it is a violation of the seperation of church and state.”
What observation could be made to suggest that a given decision was affected by religious beliefs, whereas others are not?
Yes, very recently. Within the last few years.
When a law obviously favors one religion over another(in this case christianity), and has that religion being taught to children instead of science, it’s a good indication that the lawmaker was affected by their religous beliefs. As for definitive proof of this, I have none.
“Yes, very recently. Within the last few years.”
If this is true, then it sounds like it happened under Clinton’s watch, not Bush’s. (I realize you didn’t make this claim; just in response to Repulsive Monkey)
“When a law obviously favors one religion over another(in this case christianity), and has that religion being taught to children instead of science, it’s a good indication that the lawmaker was affected by their religous beliefs. As for definitive proof of this, I have none.”
Doesn’t atheism count as a religious belief?
I think it did happen under Clinton.It may have even begun before his administration, but he certaintly did nothing to stop it. I was jut trying to clearify what repulsive monkey was saying.
Science, true science, is agnostic(I think that’s the right word). It doesn’t try to prove or disprove the existence of god/gods or a higher power. Darwinism has nothing to say about religion. So teaching evolution is not in any way athiest. If a school started to tell it’s students that there was definitley no god, that would be just as bad.
"I was just trying to clearify what repulsive monkey was saying. "
Only he was criticizing Bush with the remark; it seems we agree that was inappropriate.
“Science, true science, is agnostic… Darwinism has nothing to say about religion… If a school started to tell it’s students that there was definitley no god, that would be just as bad.”
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I agree completely.
The Darwinism/Creationism argument is an extreme example though. There’s not alot of issues like this.
More common, and complicated, problems in this issue are like abortion. Many people will claim that your political stance on abortion is a religious belief. Yet it doesn’t arise from a contrast between religious and agnostic stances, like the Darwinism/Creationism issue does. I had assumed Repulsive Monkey was speaking in the general sense, and thus towards more vague issues such as this.
However, if he meant to limit his remark to the Darwinism/Creationism issue, I would certainly agree with him (and you); except to note that it has nothing to do with Bush, which is why it was brought up.
So really, my objection to his remark stands either way.
FWIW, I believe that it’s not that darwinism can’t be taught, it’s that creationism must be taught alongside it as a valid alternative.
Of course, creationism ISN’T a valid alternative, because it’s not science. Science involves the demonstrably false. Can’t test the existence of a creator.