Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * The Presidential Debates < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Jonathan Henderson
Member
Username: Henderson1966

Post Number: 129
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 02:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That a nation of some 300 million people can offer no better two contenders for the presidency strains credulity.

I've concluded that the office of the president has become so sordid as to repulse the very people most qualified to fill it.
 

Colby Enck
Junior Member
Username: Thecheese

Post Number: 57
Registered: 06-2003
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I agree.

But then, how can it be fixed? How about more voters who vote? How about allowing more than 2 viewpoints? How about multiple rounds of primaries? How about primaries that actually mean something (rather than just a pep-rally)?

I love this country, but the whole system needs work, as do the folks who have the priviledge of benefitting from it (that's us).

I guess it all starts at the bottom, as those who end up in higher office typically begin at lower offices. So, let's all vote for honest local officials who have at least a smidgen of integrity, and maybe by the time we die, there will be a few good men (or women) in the government.

(Sorry, the idealist in me can't compete with the cynicist (is that a word?) in me.)
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 51
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 01:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It all starts and ends with each of our individual votes.
 

J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870

Post Number: 220
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 03:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Generally, with all of the backstabbing and dealcutting it takes to get in the higher echelons of politics, honest and free thinking individuals seldom get that far. Furthermore, anyone outside of the two major parties get painted as radicals, as do their supporters. Lastly, when anyone outside of the two parties gets into a position of leadership, they are a lame duck from the outset, since no one is willing to work with them.

Additionally, most in national politics don't start out in city councils. They start out as wealthy attorneys, businessmen and heirs. Local leaders usually have real jobs in addition to their civic responsibilities, and they have little time or money to wage large campaigns. In many states, even the state level elected offices are only part time and don't pay enough to support a family.

Lastly, it's only going to get worse and worse. We can only hope that it doesn't get too bad before we die.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 726
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 03:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There have been 11 US Presidents in my lifetime. Of that number, only the first, Harry Truman, possibly is deserving of greatness. Two others that are occasionally mentioned, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, both seem flawed in my eyes. Kennedy did not serve long enough to realize his potential, and Reagan was much longer on image than on substance.

I watched the first debate and I was not overly impressed with the caliber of either candidate. I think the others here are correct when they suggest that the process eliminates most of those who might bring the true vision required for greatness. We are left with survivors, not winners. Of course, there are those who would argue that events define history rather than individuals. If so, we certainly live in far from great times.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 3624
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 04:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Actually, I was more impressed with BOTH of them than I expected to be. I guess that happens when you have low expectations.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 52
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 04:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

How does one define living in a "great time."

Every time period has had it's ups and downs. It's good times and bad times.

We are where we are. We do live in the greatest age mankind has even seen. Even with humanities current flaws, I would not want to live in history.
 

kev reh
Junior Member
Username: Kevreh

Post Number: 100
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I thought that Bush would have done better. I thought he was going to go after Kerry all night. However, Bush was definately on the defensive.

I hope Kerry can gain momentum from last nights debate and start putting Bush in his place.

kevin
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 53
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 06:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Kerry might, but then again, he just might change his mind.

Who knows.
 

J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870

Post Number: 222
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 06:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

When is the last time you remember a legislator being elected president?

Legislators are career politicians who make their living by making deals, bargaining, and doing what is popular (to get them re-elected, because it is their career or livelihood). It is not in their nature to lead. The U.S. Senate is not a stepping stone to the presidency as we have seen time and again.

Governors (executive types) get elected president. They are leaders. In that position they need only demonstrate strength and conviction; they don't need to compromise, because in their position they don't need to bring home the bacon. They need to be consistent; who will follow a wavering leader. They often need to make unpopular decisions based on what they believe is the right thing to do. Sometimes they do the wrong thing. I think you need to consider whether the wrong thing was done for the right or wrong reason to judge the man. This is not the nature of the legislator who will compromise their principles one day to buy votes for themselves the next day.

Presidential executive types have not needed to be career (meaning in this case until the death) politicians. They come into office, then go back to the community. There is no consequence to the making of unpopular decisions, being steadfast and not making deals. The career is over at the end of two terms.

Ask yourself what if Bush had done nothing in response to "terrorism." He'd be getting lambasted right now for that, instead. You must admit that the aftermath of that was a no-win situation - damned if you do and damned if you don't. If we had followed our so-called allies (that is a two-way street, as the Germans are pissing and moaning about US base closings harming their economy) we would still be participating in that laughing stock of an inspection team.

Anyway, if Kerry does get elected, he at least seems to know where Bin Laden is. He must be keeping it a secret, only to reveal, if he gets elected.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 727
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 07:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Actually, Kerry made one of the few factual errors of the debate when he identified Osama bin Laden's current location as being in Afghanistan. Of course he is widely believed to be hiding in a remote, nearly inaccessible tribal region of Pakistan only loosely under the control of the central government.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 3633
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This is a great way to keep a check on BOTH sides..

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 412
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 09:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I blame the media for the fact that all we have to choose from are Bush and Kerry. I think a lot of qualified people don't want to risk going through the scrutiny and muckraking that the media would dish out. Newsguys get kudos by being the first with the dirt. Myself, I don't mind a few discretions. Somebody who's TOO perfect would give me the willies.
 

Joseph Listan
Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 209
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We all need to remember that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing when he did what he did. So did Stalin.

Believeing you are right and actually being right are two very different things. Anyone who supports Bush just because he believes he is right is a bigger idiot than Bush, which is a feat in and of itself.
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 54
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joseph, so what you are saying is that if anyone dissagrees with you (because you hate Bush), they are a big idiot?

Wow, what a great demonstration of liberal tolerance.
 

Joseph Listan
Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 210
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 06:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did I say anything about disagreeing with me? No, I did not. I'll ask you to please refrain from putting your words into my mouth.

By the way, the whole "you're against terrorism or against us" attitude is a Bush Administration trademark, not mine. It harkens back to McCarthyism and is an extremely closed-minded and dangerous mindset. I do not espouse it.

I'll say it again, in a different way: Following someone simply because they have strength in their own convictions is a very bad idea. I call this practice idiocy, and it makes you stupider than the person with the convictions.

Let's see, who else thought they were right (please pardon my spelling here)? Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Oliver Cromwell, Emperor Nero, Mussolini, Ghenghis Khan, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeni, Lenin, Henry VIII, Edward II (Longshanks, The Black Prince), Napoleon, Attilla the Hun and a long list of other tyrants and conquerors, both petty and "great". All of these people were 100% sure that they were 100% correct, and they all got a lot of innocent people killed. Strength of conviction is absolutely the stupidest reason to follow someone, and yet we have as our president someone asking you to vote for him for this very reason. He said so in the debate, more than once (this was one of only three things he repeated like a tiresome broken record).

Why not just vote for me? I insist that green is somewhere between blue and yellow. I *know* that this is true. I am *sure* of it. So vote for me, because I am sure of what I believe. Pure Idiocy.

And please, don't label me a liberal. I am not what is commonly referred to in America as a "liberal". You may label me as someone who thinks for themselves, however.
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 55
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 06:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joe, here are your exact words....

"Anyone who supports Bush just because he believes he is right is a bigger idiot than Bush, which is a feat in and of itself"

The reason why one would support Bush is because they think he IS RIGHT.

Logic then dictates that if I think Bush is right, I am an idiot according to you.

No words were put in your mouth. You are obfuscating with that argument.

Look, if you are going to make a statement, at least stand behind it.
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 56
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

BTW, you forgot to mention Nevil Chamberlin.

Seems to me that Ghandi had the strength of his convictions going for him as did Churchill.

Are you advocating that it was stupid for their followers to follow them?

It also seems to me that a leader that has strength of conviction is a better leader than one that panders or continuously changes their position.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1145
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 08:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

every Bush supporter I know, supports Bush for one reason TAXES,,,

while I do agree w/ tax cuts...

how can anyone overlook an illegal war based on lies and misinformation, with corporate interests directly connected to the executive branch getting financial benefits from said illegal war.

memos from Rumsfield's office authorizing torture, (people who order others to break the Geneva Convention are WAR CRIMINALS.)

how about the ban on stem-cells, sick people are dieing, our scientists must leave the country to pursue this important work, it reminds me of the Dark Ages (burn me at the stake for crying out loud)

anyone who supports Bush IS a big idiot, (there I said it)

I don't love Kerry either, but at least he is not Bush

one thing Bush said does hold true "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." George W. Bush

(Message edited by bigearl on October 04, 2004)
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 58
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 08:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I guess since the name calling has official begun, all rational discussion has ended.

Sadly, I am not surprised.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 417
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 08:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We having George giving us continued tax cuts, while at the same time government deficit spending is at an all time high. Um, Houston, do we have a problem here?

(Message edited by Ken75 on October 04, 2004)
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1146
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 08:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"the name calling has official begun"

no it hasn't, when the name calling really begins the "names" will be alot worse and crossed out in red
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Joseph Listan
Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 211
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh, I certainly stand behind my argument. I believe I am 100% right, so it must be true. The circular arguments of mindless republican sheep make me gag. I am certain about that too.

Note that I never attacked anyone's name to an insult, other than George Bush, who is certifiably, incurably stupid. I simply assert that anyone who follows someone because that someone thinks they are right is making a bad decision, if you can even call it a decision.

If you agree with what they believe, then that is different, but the president did ask people to vote for him simply because he believes he is right. That's stupid. The stupider thing is that the stupid will do it.

Oh, yeah, Bush _is_ stupid. To wit: the assinine enriched uranium comment he made during the debate and the slack-jawed repetition of three very basic kindergarten spin arguments without a single reference to one single fact. "My opponent waffles", "the world is safer without Saddam", "You should never change your mind". These are not facts, they are baseless assertions, with few, it any supporting facts. The reason he gave no facts is that the facts are damning, and he is too stupid to keep them straight them anyway. This is why Rove told him to just keep hammering away with spin. His own people know he is stupid, just like I do.
 

Dan Mourglea
Intermediate Member
Username: Cataclysmbrewer

Post Number: 442
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 02:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joseph? Dude, Ghenghis Khan was arguably the greatest leader in history. . .He is pretty much credited with inventing modern warfare. I think he WAS right.

As far as picking a presidential candidate, there is NO good choice! We might as well write in Denny Conn; yes some could argue our votes should go to Bill Pierce but Canada stole him away.

And Ron, I doubt there has been any rational discussion in this thread, ever.
 

Joseph Listan
Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 212
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 02:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ghenghis Khan was one of the greatest military leaders in history, in the top 3 (Alexander the Great and Julius Ceasar being the other two), but he definitely got a lot of innocent people killed. It wasn't until Hitler and Stalin came along that his record was exceeded, and they had technology he didn't have.

From a military, organisational and governmental standpoint he can be admired, from a humanistic standpoint he was a demon.

In terms of intellect he was a genius, whereas Bush is a dimwit. Bush has accomplished nothing even remotely resembling the successes of G. Khan, unless you consider record deficits an accomplishment.
 

J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870

Post Number: 232
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 04:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

To compare a president to a dictator is inappropriate. If Stalin, Hitler, Hussein were our leader, we would not be having this discussion, and Kerry and Edwards would be in jail.

You all need to realize that neither side gives a crap about you, and you need to start taking care of your own damn selves.

I do not support Bush, but I will vote for him in this election, because I believe that will keep my taxes lower. Irrespective of what else happens, I still need to pay the mortgage. It is nothing more than that. Kerry is not going to save the world, the whales or your arses, but Bush may save me a few thousand dollars.
 

Joseph Listan
Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 214
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 01:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It may be an inappropriate comparison for us, but I am sure there are many innocent Iraqis and Afghans that beg to differ, and with good arguments (like their dead children, wives or husbands). The difference is only in how far they are shoving it up your backside. If Bush had his way, we'd not be having this conversation either. Make no mistake about that.

Can you please explain to me how raising the deficit to an all time high lowers taxes in a sustainable way? Rest assured, we WILL pay for it, just maybe not next year. The money has to come from somewhere.

But I don't want to mix apples and oranges. Iraq isn't where all the debt is coming from. Social Security and Medicare account for nearly 30 trillion dollars of debt, which is almost ten times all of our other debt combined. I don't blame Bush for those broken systems, but I do blame him, and CONGRESS, for not fixing them. Don't let a short-term fix cloud the issue, especially for a paltry $800 in "lower" taxes.

I get a perverse chuckle from this "lower" income tax, when they raise taxes elsewhere on other products that increase the cost of purchased goods. They take $1,000 from you in higher gas and commodity taxes (ask any smoker) that result in decreasing your spending power, then give you $800 back on your income taxes and expect you to think they did you a favor. Most of the idiots in our country buy right into it because they have a check in their hot little hands. What they ignore is the slow creeping increase in the cost of everything else, and the amounts withheld from their checks. It is a bad shell game that tricks millions of gullible people. If you really think they are lowering your taxes, you ought to look at ALL taxes on all entities in the supply chain, not just your personal income tax, and think about what it does to your overall spending power. They give you a good reach-around, but when it is all said and done they are still raping you.

But this strays a little from the topic, which was the debates. In those debates, neither candidate gave me any hope that the real problem of impending insolvency is even important to either one of them. That subject is supposed to be coming soon. You can bet they will not address the real problem though, because they don't have any f'ing idea how to fix it, and promising to cut someone off from their "benefits" isn't a very good strategy for suckering someone into voting for you. Neither one has the courage to tell the truth, and they certainly don't have the spine to make the really tough decision to force people to take care of themselves.
 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 60
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 01:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

J.Steinhuar - Finally a rational and intelligent post! I think you have it exactly right.

People wonder what's wrong with this country? All they need to do is read some of the stuff people are posting here. It is a microcosm look into the dumbing down of America.

Truly a sad environment.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1147
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 02:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

People wonder what's wrong with this country? All they need to do is read some of the stuff people are posting here. It is a microcosm look into the dumbing down of America. "

talk about name calling and dumbing down, look at your self first Ron, for your comments make me wonder the same thing

yet I list 3 reasons to vote Bush out, these issues are not addressed,

how does being dissatisfied with a crooked administration represent "dumbing down" in fact following misguided leader (Bush) is the perfect example of "the dumbing down of America"

(vote out every incumbant no matter the party)
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 61
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 02:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wykowski - First you post this...

"anyone who supports Bush IS a big idiot, (there I said it)"

And then you expect someone to try to intelligently debate/answer the following post of yours?

"yet I list 3 reasons to vote Bush out, these issues are not addressed"

Why should they?
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1149
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 03:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

let he who is without sin...blah blah blah
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 62
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 03:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That really is not the point. We all have sinned and we all know that we have sinned.

If I walk up to you in a bar and proceed to insult you, how likely are you to have a civil and intelligent conversation with me?
 

PalerThanAle
Senior Member
Username: Palerthanale

Post Number: 1151
Registered: 04-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 04:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

stu·pid
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.


This thread is pretty much summed up in definition #5. What I don't get is why someone would try and make a political point on a brewing discussion board even when there is a space specifically set aside for it. Are you trying to "convert" others to your way of thinking? Are you trying to make other see the light? Would you try and get brewing help off of a political discussion board?

PTA
(of course this is why this is the first and, now, probably the last time I'll be in this forum!)
You don't stop laughing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop laughing.
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 2323
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 06:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

>>What I don't get is why someone would try and make a political point on a brewing discussion board even when there is a space specifically set aside for it.

Because, as homebrewers, we usually have anywhere from 5 to 50 gallons of beer sitting around our homes. So we drink it. When we get a buzz going, we like to argue politics and start fights. If we tried to pull that on our wives, we'd get booted out of home. But we don't want to do that, because the beer at home is better than that at the tavern.

Arguing politics and starting fights in a drunken stupor is the American way. Has been ever since Sam Adams and his brewer buddies got pie-eyed and dumped tea in Boston harbor in 1773.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 419
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 06:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I thought that the "World Expressions" area was for this exact kind of thing? Just so the belligerent stuff stays here and doesn't carry over into the B&V, I think we're ok. leaf
 

PalerThanAle
Senior Member
Username: Palerthanale

Post Number: 1154
Registered: 04-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 06:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

oh, well, why didn't anyone say that before. Not quite the tug on my line I had expected - but thanks for playing anyway.

I remember one time sitting having quite a few beers with some women from work talking world politics when I realized I had the fix - the cure - to end all world hunger but I couldn't get a word in edgewise and have since forgotten what it was.

PTA
You don't stop laughing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop laughing.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1150
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 07:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Logic then dictates that if I think Bush is right, I am an idiot according to you.

No words were put in your mouth. You are obfuscating with that argument.


these are your words Ron, I was only agreeing with them
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Ron Siddall
Junior Member
Username: Zardoz

Post Number: 63
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 07:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Whatever dude.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 3650
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 11:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"We might as well write in Denny Conn".....hmmmmm...
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

John Rucinski
Junior Member
Username: Ronjohn55

Post Number: 57
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 12:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'll be happy to Denny!!

As a small aside here...
Would it be too much to ask from either candidate that if you're coming to my town, you try NOT to schedule a route that involves closing down the 2 busiest freeways in the city DURING RUSH HOUR!!!!! $#&#@^$%!!!!!!

Here's an idea, how about flying where you're going to in that helicopter you had buzzing around instead of using the motorcade?

(Anyone want to guess who got hung up in traffic last night??)

John
 

Joseph Listan
Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 220
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 04:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John,

Your importance as a human being is insignificant. It is only your vote that matters, and that's only if you are in one of the 17 "battleground" states where anyone's vote even matters at all.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 765
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 05:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This is one more reason why the Electoral College has far outlived its usefulness and should go the way of election of US Senators by the state legislatures, which was addressed by the 17th Amendment in 1913. I'm fully aware this would have changed the outcome of the 2000 election, but it just as easily could result in a Republican President in the future. The effect of each voter should be the same, whether they live in Palm Beach, Florida or Casper, Wyoming.

(Message edited by BillPierce on October 07, 2004)
 

John Rucinski
Junior Member
Username: Ronjohn55

Post Number: 58
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 05:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Lucky me, I happen to be in one of those Battleground states (Michigan)

I think I'm going to get together a group of investors and buy some billboard ads just outside of Metro Airport and Selfridge AFB (The 2 usual landing spots)

"The next candidate who disrupts rush hour traffic will lose our votes"

Signed, The worker bees.....

John
 

John Jacox
Junior Member
Username: Johnj

Post Number: 61
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 01:35 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Amen Bill,
It will be difficult to get the politicos to agree though because it allows them to minimize the use of campain funds by concentrating in limited areas and it allows the local politicians a chance to earn pork for endorsements.
 

Mark Bushey
Member
Username: Spiff95

Post Number: 101
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 07:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I agree the Electoral College has far outlived its usefulness. Though I voted for dubyah in 2000 (never again), I would have had no heartburn if the popular vote was the deciding factor in that election. I only wish it were the deciding factor in the upcoming one!
--Artificial Intelligence is no match for Organic Stupidity.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 426
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

John I went through the same thing when Bush passed 1/4 mile from my house after a rally in Kirtland OH on 9-4. I wasn't allowed to go under the I-90 overpass for over an hour. Local cops unable to let local (and recognized) citizens go through. Almost silly. His entourage was heading east. Terrorists most likely would use a west-bound suicide car bomb if they wanted to get him. Swerve across the median and kaboom. What they had in place to thwart that, I don't know. It was neat though to realize that the most powerful man in the world (arguably) just drove by.
Ken
 

Brian Garber
Junior Member
Username: Bgarber

Post Number: 66
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 08:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

For what its worth, these stats were sent to me in an email in support of the electoral college after the whole 2000 election fiasco.

"States won by Gore: 19
States won by Bush: 29
Counties won by Gore: 677
Counties won by Bush: 2,434
Pop. of counties won by Gore: 127 million
Pop. of counties won by Bush: 143 million
Sq miles of country won by Gore: 580,000
Sq miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000"

I gotta admit it was interesting to see the USA Today map showing all the red counties vs. blue counties four years ago.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1165
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 08:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

you can take numbers and make any case you want...

the numbers above show me that the Electoral College is flawed,

since gore won the popular vote,
but bush won the catagories above (along with the states),

then gore got more votes in highly populated areas

useing this logic, a person living in a highly populated area (city), there vote is worth less than the vote of a rural citizen, hmmm
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 854
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It shouldn't be states, counties or square miles that vote. It should be people throughout the country, individual by individual, unweighted by geographic distribution. The Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine of one person one vote, with the exceptions of the US Senate (each state has two Senators) and the Electoral College.

Even accounting for the varying numbers of electoral votes (California has approximately 635,000 people for each of its 55 electoral votes, while Wyoming has 167,000 for each of its three), it hardly seems democratic (with a small 'd'). In all but two states (Maine and possibly Colorado this year) the winner of a plurality of the popular vote receives all of a state's electoral votes and the loser none. A candidate could receive 70 percent of the votes in Illinois, for example, and 50 percent in Pennsylvania, and the electoral votes (21 in each state) would be the same. This greatly increases the possibility of inequities.

Three times (1876, 1888, 2000) a candidate has won the presidency but lost the popular vote. Curiously (no irony intended), all three were Republicans.

The Electoral College has long outlived any usefulness it once might have had before there were established political parties and mass communication throughout the country. It now serves to undermine the electoral system and the principles of democracy.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 438
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 11:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You mean one American, one vote? Oh that sounds much too complicated.
 

Brian Garber
Junior Member
Username: Bgarber

Post Number: 67
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 02:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

But, without the Electoral College, you could have a situation where a well funded candidate would just have to spend a lot of money campaigning in only a few places i.e. major cities to win the popular vote. This would then disenfranchise the people in states with small populations. What would be their motivation to go to the polls?

I'm not saying I think the system is flawless, but we have to consider the pitfalls of making a sudden move to a "true" democracy as far as presidential elections are concerned.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1168
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 03:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't know if campaining in major cities will help win the popular vote...read above... when W came to town it took me 40min to go 4 miles.
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 863
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 05:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The 20 metropolitan areas with the largest population (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore-Washington, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Cleveland, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, St. Louis, Denver, Pittsburgh) are relatively well distributed in terms of geography. That's more than a "few places" for the candidates to concentrate their efforts, Brian. Even with the Electoral College as it is today, I don't see them spending much time in Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island and other small population states.
 

Brian Garber
Junior Member
Username: Bgarber

Post Number: 68
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 06:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That's my point. The people in all of those cities more than likely have very similar needs/concerns that are much different from the farmer's needs/concerns in middle America. So yes, it gives the rural citizen more of a voice.

Again, I'm not saying the Electoral College is perfect, but neither is a fully popular vote.

And Bill, please don't get too mad at me! I need your help with my brewing!!!!
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1170
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 06:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

it gives the rural citizen more of a voice.

and how is that fair ? esspecially with high minority populations in the cities,

gerrymandering still exists...
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 865
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 07:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ask Chumley, who lives in a small city in a low population state (Helena, Montana), if he feels he has more of a voice. And Ken Anderson doesn't live in a metropolitan area (he's in Ashtabula, Ohio) but he happens to be in a hotly contested "battleground" state where the candidates are spending a lot of time. I won't speak for him, but I kind of doubt he feels he has a direct line to either candidate or party.

My point is that the American system already gives residents of smaller population states a greater voice by virtue of two Senators for each state. But today each person's vote for President should have approximately equal standing. The Electoral College is greatly outdated and promotes the notion that the system is less than fair.

(Message edited by BillPierce on October 19, 2004)
 

Brandon Dachel
Senior Member
Username: Brandon

Post Number: 1253
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 05:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm just curious if the left would continue to be so incensed over the 'unfairness' of the electoral college system if algore had lost the popular vote yet secured more electoral votes?

All the talk about the electoral college has inspired exactly zero changes. It sounds like nothing more than whining at this point. The rules have existed for quite some time now. We've elected presidents in this manner before. The rules have not changed.

Now (well, since 2000 anyways) the rules are 'unfair' and 'outdated'. And this mantra is repeated ad nauseum...yet nobody has done anything except complain.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 872
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 06:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I admit I voted for Al Gore and winced over the fiasco in Florida during and after the 2000 election. The best that can be said about it is that America survived and people accepted the eventual outcome, controversial as it may have been. You can call it "whining," Brandon, but it hardly seemed like the country's finest moment or a testimonial to the effectiveness and fairness of the current electoral system.

On two occasions during the past week I have heard the pundits discuss a hypothetical situation in which this year Kerry loses the popular vote but wins via the electoral vote. The scenario involves him winning in two of the three large "battleground" states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania) but losing in the majority of others.

I can honestly say that I would favor this outcome only slightly more than what occurred in 2000. And again it would bring howls of protest, this time mostly from Republicans. I believe the country can withstand only so much of this kind of divisiveness.

It's in the best interests of both major political parties--and all the people--to elect the President by direct popular vote and remove the Electoral College as an impediment to the American political system.

(Message edited by BillPierce on October 20, 2004)
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 2377
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 08:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I thank my lucky stars that I live in a solid "red" state, which means I am spared all the campaigning and commercials you poor souls in the battleground states have to endure. I am pretty much sick of it.

I agree with Bill on getting rid of the electoral college. We did away with senators getting elected by state legislatures, why not get rid of this anachronism? I suspect it is because the little states like Iowa and New Hampshire like the clout they get to wield every four years.

Last weekend I spent in hunting camp in eastern Montana was with 8 hunters, of which I was the only liberal democrat in the lot (6 Republicans and 1 Libertarian). The boys in camp are considering pooling their money together to fly me to Miles City on Election Day so that they can have someone to make fun of at their Election Day party.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1172
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 08:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

All the talk about the electoral college has inspired exactly zero changes.

are you retarded ??
this is a the B&V not congress
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1173
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 08:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

hey Chumley, please go to the party, and pee in the punch
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 440
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 02:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yesterday George said that our fight in Iraq is the right thing to do. The spin is that Iraq is a hotbed of terrorist activity, and better to fight terrorism over there, rather than on American soil. The sad thing is, there're a LOT of Americans who buy into this drivel. Unbelieveable.
 

Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 254
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 04:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yeah, just "Kill them before they kill us". Too easy.

Never mind that we have pissed off thousands of young Iraqi men who otherwise wouldn't have hated us enough to want to join a trrrrrist organization. Well, now they have more reason than ever.

That's right, THOUSANDS of them. And many of them are already in the US, legally. Three years ago they were just college students or visa workers or what have you. Now they see that their family just got killed by a 2000 pound bomb. You get the idea (some of you do, anyway). But we are keeping them all "over there" right? Wrong. It is just so laughable to think that since we are dropping bombs in Iraq, that somehow nobody can get *here* anymore. Ridiculous, illogical and reprehensible.

Somehow, I just don't feel safer, but I certainly won't vote for the guy who made the world more dangerous, because he insists that he is keeping it all "over there". I doubt many Iraqis feel like the world is safer, and I would wager many Israelis don't either.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: