bush's plunders

[Placid]

american 'democracy' sucks........bush needs to read nineteen-eighty-four.

 

then again, blair isnt much better. But i'd rather live here in england than be under the control of a useless, money hungry, corrupt,war mongering twat like bush. (did i say corrupt?)

 

It seems from my perspective ( and i may be wrong ) that most u.s presidents get corrupted when they reach power these days... is there any hope?

[Wytter]

It seems from my perspective ( and i may be wrong ) that most u.s presidents get corrupted when they reach power these days... is there any hope?

I doubt it, as only the richest are able to come to power in the states... Money corrupts.

[Placid]

and therefore because there rich, and know that only their kind can get to power, they are inherently corrupt, not just because of money. And if they are not corrupt before, there is something about being in the us constituance that turns presidents corrupt....not just money.

 

The only thing i like about america, is the people, the space, the weather, the women and the availability of everything. Bush is spoiling america's reputation.....someone get rid of him

[Wytter]

Bush is spoiling america's reputation.....someone get rid of him

So is McDonalds ;-) Someone get rid of them =)

[Placid]

lol,

 

in fact, get rid of everyone and start again....piece of piss, only take a couple of hundred years...

[Brom]

Lets take a little vote here. Do people here think that the United States is a Democracy? Because to my knowledge it is a Representive Republic. On another note the Electoral college is necessary and good (yes a Republican view) Without it, NO ONES vote in say....Wyoming would really matter, seeing as all the people in say...New York would outway they by so much! erh! yeah. Thanks guys

[Prometheus]

On another note the Electoral college is necessary and good (yes a Republican view)  Without it, NO ONES vote in say....Wyoming would really matter, seeing as all the people in say...New York would outway they by so much! erh! yeah. Thanks guys

 

I strongly disagree, it is the Electoral College that demeans the value of the individual vote. For some reason you are thinking in terms of states Electoral votes on one side and not general ballot votes on the other, which totaly negates the purpose of your statment. What would it matter which state you happened to be in when you cast your vote as long as your vote truly counted?

 

As it stands, Electors in the Electoral College DO NOT have to represent the majority voters of their respective states even if in theory they should be the Electors slated by the voted majority candidates party after the general election ballot, and it would seem in their best interest to vote accordingly.

 

BUT as long as each Elector votes for at least one candidate who is not a resident (big loop holes) of their respective state, they can vote however they damn well please.

 

James Madison "In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter."

 

What this says to me is that at least one (probably all) of our founding fathers had little or no faith in the ability of the general population to reason and decide for itself. Madison describes the people in mass as being ignorant and paranoid that their leaders are not looking out for their best interest, and that said people might rise up to do something about it, (patriot act? anyone? anyone?).

 

I don't blame Madison, in eighteenth century America most of the common people (citizens) were illiterate, under educated, and had known only the rule of a monarchy. Madison had every reason to believe exactly what he said. However, what about now?

 

The Electoral College is an anachronistic slap in the face to every citizen who votes. Yes, the United States is a representative republic and not a true democracy, though IMO this piece of archaic garbage should be removed from our constitution like a bad appendix.

[Brom]

Before I launch into an assault on the misguided opinions of Prometheus, I'd like to point out that I am not Ewq222. I'm just his friend using his account for a moment so I can help some of you get your heads screwed on right (not left, mind you). Anyhoo...

 

Apparently, Prometheus, you have an interesting view of world history and not a complete understanding of just what it was the Founding Fathers hoped to accomplish in creating this nation. As everyone is taught from the time they are schoolchildren, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and all the others hoped to combine the most successful ideas of ancient Greece as well as Rome, while at the same time mixing the fruits of the dust that had just settled from the French Revolution. (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity).

 

That said, the Fathers realized that one of the main reasons why Greece fell to ruin is because it (unlike the United States) was an absolute democracy. Naturally, anarchy resulted. (Can you imagine every single voter in the United States having to vote on whether they support such and such a stupid resolution in Congress about whether we want to celebrate some odd national leader's birthday? That would be ridiculous and a waste of time and money and people would quickly fall into apathy about what happened within the government.)

 

They also realized that one of the main reasons Rome fell is because it was far too authoritarian and, quite frankly, cared little for the needs of the individual. "All for the glory of Rome" were the watchwords, and individuality was supressed to no end. And so, our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created a system whereby we can retain the better angels of the nature of a Republic while still honoring the importance of the individual and the value of his opinion (democracy).

 

Thus, they created a Representative Republic, which in short is a system whereby we elect people to make decisions for us, because if the people were left to themselves to vote on each and every decision to be made within the government, anarchy (like unto Greece) will result. Everything in our system points toward our being a representative republic. From town councils to state legislatures to Congress to the Supreme Court to the President, everything is geared around representing the people. In this system, which the Founding Fathers wisely set up, every vote really does count, although in a slightly different way than it does in a direct democracy. The collegiate electors are representatives of what the people in their respective states voice support for and in this way the people are more accurately represented.

 

I don't blame Madison, in eighteenth century America most of the common people (citizens) were illiterate, under educated, and had known only the rule of a monarchy. Madison had every reason to believe exactly what he said. However, what about now?

 

The Electoral College is an anachronistic slap in the face to every citizen who votes. Yes, the United States is a representative republic and not a true democracy, though IMO this piece of archaic garbage should be removed from our constitution like a bad appendix.

 

It is unfortunate when people think that just because the constitution was written so very long ago, the basic nature of human beings has changed so very drastically that the basic system our Founding Fathers set up was flawed. Are you suggesting, Prometheus, that just because we have made gargantuan strides in education over the centuries, that each and every person is therefore very meticulously informed on the various details regarding each issue? Is every voter 100% able to make a completely educated opinion on when an abortion is and is not a wise choice medically? No. Is every voter 100% able to make a completely educated decision regarding what should be going on in the Military and Intelligence communities? No. That's why we have Congress, and that's why Congress has an Intelligence Committee. We pay these people to be informed about these things so we don't have to make poor choices on them because of our ignorance.

 

The American system is neither "archaid" nor "garbage," but rather the envy of the world because of her unrivaled success. The UN wishes they could be as successful as we are, but let's face it, they're globalistic socialistic utopian Bonapartists who would like to take over the world, not by means of military conquests, but rather by the "ideals of love and peace and tolerance" (ie, war is always bad and never results in desirable ends) that even they don't believe in. The only ones who do are their brainwashed followers who know only what uneducated rock stars and Michael Moore tell them.

[Leeloo]

The American system is neither "archaid" nor "garbage," but rather the envy of the world because of her unrivaled success.

Another american who believes that "the world" equals "U.S.A."

 

The people in the US are the only people who envy the US.

[Wytter]

Now how do you define succes?

 

Some people in the more civilized world would define succes as having a country that's capable of helping the misfortunate - people who are i.e. either need medical treatment, are out of work or homeless. I am one of them.

 

In America, approx. 40 million people are living under such poor circumstances that they can be classified as being poor according to the UN. Now that's a large part of your population that cannot afford proper medical care or to help their young ones getting a good start in life. Being ignorant towards this part of the population is not a way to solve the problem - it is more important to be able to feed a human being and give it proper medical care than to have 2 ferraries...

 

I can understand people that measure succes of an individual in terms of material values - allthough personally I only measure succes in terms of how happy the person is, and how the person acts towards other people - if a person is i.e. a racist I see that as a human failure and must be caused by some insecurity, that makes the person act differently towards people with other ethnicity (and the person is not counted as a "whole" person in my eyes). But a whole country should not measure it's succes based on material values - a country should measure it's succes in terms of more soft values such as:

Is our children able to get a good education, no matter what their background looks like?

Is our population able to get proper medical treatment?

Is our population able to get food on the table?

How many families have a good economy, and how many are poor? Is this satisfying numbers?

 

Personally I do not see America as a succes. 2 of 3 adults suffer from weight problems, people are generally concerned about the future, the government is spreading lies to it's population and to the rest of the world, there's a lack of labor unions fighting for better rights for the working class, most people haven't been able to save up for their retirement (and the list goes on).

 

I do not see Europe as a succes either. The bureuacracy in the European Union is almost endless, we have trade embargoes, large trade taxes etc. to protect our own economy towards the rest of the world (hence making the living harder for people outside Europe in the developing countries) - generally we are a very sad example of protectionism, which ultimately leads to more discrimination as it is an example of our fear towards the out-side world.

 

But when that is said, I am very happy that I live in Europe, and not in the USA. I think that our mentalities are simply too different for us to comprehend what goes on in your minds. A poll was released a few days ago in DK showing that if we were to choose the next president of the US, 87 percent would vote for John Kerry - people believe that G. W. Bush is ru{n,i}ning America in a very arrogant way, and so do I.

 

Personally I could never live in a country with that government - even in DK I am thinking of moving because of the currently right-wing government..

[crusadingknight]

The American system is neither "archaid" nor "garbage," but rather the envy of the world because of her unrivaled success.  The UN wishes they could be as successful as we are, but let's face it, they're globalistic socialistic utopian Bonapartists who would like to take over the world, not by means of military conquests, but rather by the "ideals of love and peace and tolerance" (ie, war is always bad and never results in desirable ends) that even they don't believe in.  The only ones who do are their brainwashed followers who know only what uneducated rock stars and Michael Moore tell them.

Only part of that phrase you got correct was socialist.

 

BTW, by successful, do you mean "killing innocents in relialitory gesture due to inablility to strike at the source of their problems"? That's not what the UN seeks to be...in fact, they spend a lot of time cleaning up such messes. Your views are so extremely rightist, I suspect you never even think of the GLOBAL viewpoint, that myabe, just MAYBE, you WOULDN'T like to die through bombing on a civilian area...they are accidents, but pesonally, _I_ prefer "ideals of love and peace and tolerance".

 

 

...But anyway, let's not let this degenerate into political flames

[MikeH]

our president and congress, in their infinite wisdom decided that what would stimulate the economy is a 350 billion dollar tax cut. At a time in wich, every fucking state in teh union... is BROKE! We dont have any fucking money!! So what the fuck money are you cutting!? What tax money are you cutting!! What the FUCK is being cut!! Its not there!!! Its... not fucking there! What are yous stimulating when..... you just made it up your fucking assholes!!

 

So as long as they think we have that money, then we should use that money to build a wall between teh US and canada, because that is where all teh cold air comes from.

 

-- lewis black

[Brom]

ok, this is back to the real EWQ222, and just let me say, that was great, I love this quote! though it would never really happen:

So as long as they think we have that money, then we should use that money to build a wall between teh US and canada, because that is where all teh cold air comes from.

 

Your views are so extremely rightist, I suspect you never even think of the GLOBAL viewpoint, that myabe, just MAYBE, you WOULDN'T like to die through bombing on a civilian area...they are accidents, but pesonally, _I_ prefer "ideals of love and peace and tolerance".

Also, if you feel my friend does not have a view of the world, perhaps he will soon, he is leaving soon and will be gone from the US for 2 years in South Africa, mabey he will come back more unrightist

 

Wytter,

I see you think that the United States is horrible, and because of a list of bad things it is somehow the worst. Im not saying anything about those issues because I plain dont know enough about them. but what I do know is if you get the government to control all aspects of the people's lives, why dont we all just become communists and make it easy eh? If we (USA) fixed ALL of those problems you listed there would still be more, then you would simply complain about those. Im a firm beliver that "there must needs be oppostion in all things" and if you dont understand that Ill explain it to you very easy. If there was no bad there would be no good. Thank you.

 

No doubt he (my friend with the controvertal post) will be comming over later and Im sure will retort in his own sort of way. Thanks

[Prometheus]

Before I launch into an assault on the misguided opinions of Prometheus, I'd like to point...blah blah blah

 

Did we get warped into the flames section?

 

Apparently, Prometheus, you have an interesting view of world history and not a complete understanding of just what it was the Founding Fathers hoped to accomplish in creating this nation.  As everyone is taught from the time they are schoolchildren, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and all the others hoped to combine the most successful ideas of ancient Greece as well as Rome, while at the same time mixing the fruits of the dust that had just settled from the French Revolution. (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity).

 

I wouldn’t go so far as to say my view of world history is very interesting. However, judging from the contents of your post, I'd say my view is more accurate. You obviously have succumbed to one of history's little illusions my friend. The founding fathers of the United States were not selfless sophists who had nothing better to do with their time than make the world a better place by instilling in it the virtues of a burgeoning nation.

 

Infact many of the above quoted, (particularly Jefferson), were notoriously self-interested womanizers and backstabbing polititicians. So in some instance your right... not much changes.

 

As far as their "HOPE" to "COMBINE" successful ideas...this is yet another falsehood perpetrated by fairy tail writers... err I mean historians. Yes the combination of similar types of governments may be the result, but the means to this end was a clash of the founding father's ego's and the need to appease their respective constituents.

 

(

Can you imagine every single voter in the United States having to vote on whether they support such and such a stupid resolution in Congress about whether we want to celebrate some odd national leader's birthday?  That would be ridiculous and a waste of time and money and people would quickly fall into apathy about what happened within the government.)

 

Excuse me? Are you blind? An average 37% of eligible voters vote in the general election for the president of the United States. The statistics fall sharply for local and state wide elections. This seems pretty damn apathetic to me...you are obviously living in the united states of Bush where everything is all damn peachy all the damn time.

 

They also realized that one of the main reasons Rome fell is because it was far too authoritarian and, quite frankly, cared little for the needs of the individual.  "All for the glory of Rome" were the watchwords, and individuality was suppressed to no end.  And so, our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, created a system whereby we can retain the better angels of the nature of a Republic while still honoring the importance of the individual and the value of his opinion (democracy).

 

Infinite wisdom? Do me a favor and bang your head against a nearby wall for no less than five minutes or until you either forget those words or lose the ability to use them in a serious conversation. Then pick up a copy of The Federalist Papers and READ IT!.

 

It is unfortunate when people think that just because the constitution was written so very long ago, the basic nature of human beings has changed so very drastically that the basic system our Founding Fathers set up was flawed.  Are you suggesting, Prometheus, that just because we have made gargantuan strides in education over the centuries, that each and every person is therefore very meticulously informed on the various details regarding each issue?  Is every voter 100% able to make a completely educated opinion on when an abortion is and is not a wise choice medically?  No.  Is every voter 100% able to make a completely educated decision regarding what should be going on in the Military and Intelligence communities?  No.  That's why we have Congress, and that's why Congress has an Intelligence Committee.  We pay these people to be informed about these things so we don't have to make poor choices on them because of our ignorance.

 

Ok seeing that this is the only paragraph in which you make a modicum of sense i.e. you've stopped talking out of your ass and actually make some important points. Let’s examine these points.

 

It would take a gargantuan stride in evolution not education to change human nature. However, as individuals we are not so bad.

100%? Personally I can't even make a decent cup of coffee 100% of the time, but my average is certainly better than 37%. And this is quite besides the point I was making about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE which was designed to protect the holdings of wealthy land barons. Not as a failsafe against the fall of Rome, or against our own poor choices, or any other brain fart you can come up with. It takes away the choice of the many and puts it into the hands of the few; therefore it only serves an elite few.

 

A representative republic or rule by law only works if the laws are fair and decided upon by the many. And it seems to me that barring the people from directly electing the person to the highest seat in our government is a crime in and of itself.

It cuts against the grain of our entire constitution.

 

As for that last part about paying other people to protect us from our own ignorance. Bullshit... we just need someone to blame when our country does something so screwed up that the rest of the world hates us for it. But that is another story.

 

The collegiate electors are representatives of what the people in their respective states voice support for and in this way the people are more accurately represented.

 

Still more bullshit... the Electors themselves are only elected by individual vote in TWO of our fifty states, and again (in case you missed this part in my first post) aside from a couple laws riddled with loopholes they have complete discression as to whom they choose to elect. There is no law that states that they must vote for the popular candidate of their respective state. If a slated elector decides to cross party lines after being selected there is no recourse in any court of law.

 

The UN wishes they could be as successful as we are, but let's face it, they're globalistic socialistic utopian Bonapartists who would like to take over the world, not by means of military conquests, but rather by the "ideals of love and peace and tolerance" (ie, war is always bad and never results in desirable ends) that even they don't believe in.  The only ones who do are their brainwashed followers who know only what uneducated rock stars and Michael Moore tell them.

 

I hate to tell you this but the United States is one of the founding members of the UN, we helped establish its structure and bylaws. It was an American ideal to try to endow the U.N. with authority to enforce the peace without infringing on the sovereignty of other nations, including our own.

I only have this to say about ENTERTAINERS who abuse their public stage... If moralists indeed have no place in the art world, then dumbasses like Michael Moore and other liberal/conservative iconic ENTERTAINERS have no business telling me what my f*cking opinion should be.

[Brom]

Converstation with my Friend and I after reading your post Prometheus.

(12:32:16) ghermowsky: actually, he knows his facts, which I must admit, is slightly frustrating (because very few people do... believe it or not I have profound respect for this guy... he's done his homework, that's for sure)

 

(12:32:31) ghermowsky: the problem is, he twists them quite well

 

(12:32:42) ghermowsky: or, as bill o'reilly would call it:  "spin"

 

(12:32:53) Ewq222: I should just post this, those last few messages

He wants to retort. but, not now.

[Dabilahr0]

This was so good I had to bring the topic up again.

http://www.plattbridger.myby.co.uk/bushisms.htm

 

Cheers,

 

~S

:lol: :lol: