Hmm, how many people are emmigrating to Canada? I've read there's 821,000 Canadian expats in the US.
I still don't know what people, the ones that don't understand how the Electoral College works?Originally Posted by Pyken
Like I said, they upheld US and Florida law.
Yep, it says Bush won using the system Gore wanted to be used. LOL
Oldsmar, Florida (Pinellas County) here.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
sorry i dont see how your going to get 49% of michigan to secede, but you can take the counties of each state that voted for kerry, if you did you would DRAMATICALY drop the crime rate in the US do you know that the top 25 most dangerous city in the US all voted for kerry? and only 3 of the safest top 10 voted for kerry. wonder what it means?
wrong answer #1
"knowing what we know now," would he have voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq.
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority," said Kerry. "I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
Kerry's speech to the Democratic Leadership Council on July 29, 2002. "I agree completely with this administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq," Kerry says. He calls Saddam a "renegade" who has betrayed the terms of his 1991 cease-fire.
kerry agreed with the war, just not its implementation..
wrong answer #2
i specificaly said that kerry believed abortion was wrong, prove i am wrong, dont just say i am.
"It's a tragic day in the lives of everybody when abortion is looked on as an alternative to birth control or as an alternative to having a child. I think that's wrong," Kerry declared in the interview.
In fact, Kerry went so far as to say he is "opposed to abortion" because it makes "common sense" to do so.
"I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide," he commented.
again they disagree on delivery, but not the concept.
So you have been wrong on two counts so far
but you didnt, and you still said i was wrong, i wasnt, if you would like to correct yourself, i wont stop you.
nope i disagree, sorry but i think that the majority of america lies just left and just right of center, with a comparitivly few religious zealots on the right, and special interest groups on the left.
Last edited by Donnie; 11 Nov 04, at 02:20.
Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the man comes around- Johnny Cash
No, see, I was referring to the majority population of the United States of America, pretty straightforward. As to the Electoral College (personally I think it's a terrible way of electing a president, making some states more valuable, and then awarding all seats in the state to the winner, even if it was only a single vote that decided the state? Doesn't sound very democratic to me, but I'm Canadian, and we get far fewer votes to elect officials than you do.)
They interpreted it, some would argue correctly, some would argue incorrectly. Let's not pretend the Supreme Court decisions were unanimous. 7-2 and 5-4. Not as though everyone sides with you. I say it's pretty indicative of the feelings about Mr. Bush's victory when nine people can't even reach a unanimous decision.
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
That's not how Presidents are elected.
Actually it makes all of the states valuable, not just the states with a large population. I think the Electoral College is genius, a great equalizer.
They can argue all they want, it doesn't matter what their opinions are.When was the last time those 9 people agreed on anything?
One quick observation, just a guess but, if the election had gone to the liberal, I bet you would be arguing the position I'm on, but I would still be here with the same position. The law is the law, BTW, I didn't vote for Bush in that election.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
its a unimaginable sucess, ingenious really, if there were no EC ohio wouldnt have even been a campain stop. they would be camped in cali and newyork. sorry but the EC is pure genious from men who could somehow see way into the future, its a beutiful thing.
who cares what the augument is? gore lost, he lost the EC, he lost the SC, he lost the independant recount that HE wanted, he lost. bush won.
Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the man comes around- Johnny Cash
Amen...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Never said it was, I just said that the people of your country voted that Mr. Gore should be president.
I personally don't understand as much about the Electoral College as I need to in order to make a competent argument here. How does it work, precisely? Are more electoral seats given to the states with small populations? How do you explain the fact that the "Electors" can vote contrary to the popular beliefs of their state?
The people of the United States don't matter in a decision which will directly affect their futures? Besides, the nine people whose opinions mattered argued just as much, what do you say to them?
Happens all the time. Just look through the history.When was the last time those 9 people agreed on anything?
No, this argument wouldn't exist had Mr. Gore been awarded the election last time. I have absolutely no problems with him, in theory. I don't know how he would have decided with the occurence of events, but I'm still more of a liberal than a conservative. Oh, and good for you in not voting for Mr. Bush, glad to hear it.
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'm Canadian, in fact, a former Canadian Forces member. Never mind the causes of the American Civil War. The Confederates States wanted seperation from the Union. The Union said no. They fought a war to see who was right. The result is obvious.
Chimo
We won't have a war this time, if it happenes, it will happen peacefully. I don't think we would be willing to kill each other in order to prevent secession.
Rising religious fundamentalism is defintely one of the problem.The blue states are not being driven to comtemplate [sic] anything. Disgruntled Democrats are the ones driving any such effort. Please tell me exactly how "religious right wing" voters are driving this effort. And be specific. Actually, your use of those three words I cite in the sentence above speaks volumes about your view on the subject. But I'd still be very interested in you articulating that viewpoint.
In my opinion 51:49 should be ok. Canadians have a similar rule.
No, they didn't, the EC is what counts, the individual state's popular vote.
Here's a quick FAQ: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...=199823&page=1
Google will get you to something more in-depth if you require that.
How do I explain it? Checks and balances would be my answer, but the founders of this country were much smarter than I, and I cannot speak for all of their motivations.
Their opinion of the law allows them to try and change it, but their opinion about the law because things don't go their way, is meaningless.
If they voted based on the federal Constitution, they did the right thing, regardless of their decision. It would have been a severe blow to state's rights if they had made the opposite decision. It could have been enough to shake the Republic.
It's happened in the past, but the SC wasn't as partisan then. How many have there been in the last 10 years?
Sorry, let me rephrase that: "One quick observation, just a guess but, if the situation had been opposite, I bet you would be arguing the position I'm on, but I would still be here with the same position. "
Republicans are too politically liberal for me, I usually vote Libertarian. I would never vote for someone like Gore.
Last edited by Confed999; 11 Nov 04, at 04:58.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
I'm convinced now...
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
There is no such thing as a peaceful war. And , if my appraisal of the liberal belief systems is accurate, nor would any secession effort on their part assume a passive methodology.
How do you define "religious fundamentalism"?
Most conservatives are not concerned with the meshing of a religious philosophy with a governing style. Rather, they are concerned with the eraser-like effort that is being given to the religious tenets that help found this country. While liberals may live in denial of history, no reasonable person can deny the influence of faith upon the United States of America's creation and continuing prosperous nature. It is part of our strength. It was a "given" by our Founding Fathers (the same way a President would never allow himself to be the recipient of oral sex in the White House Oval Ofiice without resigning , upon discovery, with a measure of dignity).
I would rather devote myself to the context of a cautionary religious philosophy that had helped guide, mold, and futher democracy in this country than I would in adhering to the hate-filled, anti-Christian philosophy that has gripped so many Democrats.
"If I see further than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."
--Sir Isaac Newton
no they dont
Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the man comes around- Johnny Cash
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Share this thread with friends: