|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Let's invade America!
|
Symon
Shipmate
# 246
|
Posted
As we in the UK listen to George Bush's parrots (i.e. the UK government) repeat almost verbatim the propoganda coming out of Washington, we are basically given four reasons for going to war with Iraq:
1 Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
2 The Iraqi government is brutal and undemocratic.
3 Iraq harbors terrorists.
4 Iraq ignores UN resolutions.
Following this logic, I can only come up with one answer: let's invade the United States of America!
The USA has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world put together. The US president was selected by a majority of one on a biased panel of judges. The US upholds brutal and violent regimes in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, South Korea, and elsewhere. The US denies its own people basic human rights such as free health care. The US funds right-wing terrorists operating in Columbia and Cuba (to name but two countries) and its own CIA carries out terrorism. The US continually ignore UN resolutions on the Cuba blockade, as well as international treaties such as Kyoto. We'll use Blair's own logic: let's invade America!
[ 08. April 2005, 22:39: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
"Christ has come to teach his people himself"
- George Fox
Posts: 144 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
Neiiiiiiighh-BANG!
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
well, ok, if you must, but could you wait til after christmas, please? thanks.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
WOW. I am VERY impressed that you managed to cram so much ignorance and stupidity into one itty-bitty OP. That is truly an art.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I think the idea is to invade before they get too many weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise you get anihilated, which kinda defeats the objective.
Having said that, I would need to be very certain that Iraq actually was building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Just accepting an American president's word for it seems way too dodgy for me.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
WOW. I am VERY impressed that you managed to cram so much ignorance and stupidity into one itty-bitty OP. That is truly an art.
That some people manage to cram enormous amounts of ignorance and stupidity into a small, human sized, brain amazes me sometimes.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
Got sent this in an email. Seemed appropriate.
quote:
Belgians Lead Push for Regime Change in America by Phil Lebovits
Spurred by reports of an aggressive military build-up and failure to reign in corporate terrorists, the government of Belgium is pressing for a pre-emptive strike against the regime of George W. Bush."We cannot sit idly by and eat our delicious chocolates while the United States government engages in a policy of harassment," Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said in a nationally televised address to the Belgian people. "Now is the time for action. We cannot waffle."
Recent reports from Belgian intelligence sources indicate that the United States is now in possession of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear. "We know that the United States has nuclear weapons and that they have actually used them in the past," intoned the Prime Minister. "There is no reason to think they will not use them in the future." Verhofstadt is insisting that United Nations weapon inspectors be given "unfettered access to the massive stockpiles" of weapons, and that they be destroyed immediately. "We stand at the crossroads," pleaded Verhofstadt. "Either the United States agrees to our demands, or we will be forced to put down our delicious chocolates and lead the way for permanent regime change. Remember, my dear Walloons, the current clique in Washington wa! s elected in direct contravention of the will of the American people. Regime change will be welcomed by their citizens."
Reaction to the speech throughout Europe was swift. "We stand with our Belgian brothers," offered French President Jacques Chirac. "France is willing to commit thirtyfive troops and many cases of fine champagne to the cause. We cannot stand on the sidelines enjoying our delicious baguettes while our comrades from Antwerp go for it alone. Let me assure the dear Prime Minister; France is with you, almost. "Russian President Vladimir Putin did not mince any words. "Again, it is the powerful Belgians who must lead the world against aggression and American hegemony. Russia stands with her European allies and insists that theUnited States disarm unilaterally. I only wish we too had delicious foods." Following the speech, the mood at the White House was one of defiance. "Let the Belgians make their empty threats,"! said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "We are urging Hershey's and Mars and other fine American chocolate makers to increase their yummy output by twohundred percent in the coming weeks. We intend to break up the evil-doing Belgian chocolate cartel once and for all." Vice President Dick Cheney was even more bellicose. Speaking directly underneath Karl Rove from an undisclosed underground bunker, the Vice President warned of dire consequences should Belgium make a pre-emptive strike. "We are prepared to strike back with alarming force," said Cheney. "The Belgians cannot bully us. They may be the world's only superpower, but we here in America have God on our side. To hell with their delicious chocolate treats."
Verhofstadt, while unyielding in tone and substance, did offer the Americans a plausible way out. "I call upon George W. Bush to capture Sheik Kenneth Lay, Imam Dennis Kozlowski, and the entire Worldcom terrorist organization,and to hand them over to an international tribunal. The United States can no longer harbour agents of terrorism. You are either with us or against us." Back in Washington, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice were trying eagerly to persuade President Bush that there was indeed a country named Belgium.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Symon
Shipmate
# 246
|
Posted
Well, Erin, as for your comment about ignorance and stupidity: where's your argument? This isn't the first time you've attacked my argument without putting one forward in opposition to it. I'm more than willing to debate, if you'll take up the argument instead of just attacking me.
Of course, in Purgatory I would have argued less flippantly. While this was a flippant post, I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the USA and their poodles in Downing Street.
--------------------
"Christ has come to teach his people himself"
- George Fox
Posts: 144 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Hey, I'm not one of Bush's defenders (hell, I didn't vote for the man), so don't look at me to justify any planned invasion of Iraq. But this part of the OP is typical rhetoric of people who are too stupid to google the facts:
quote:
The US president was selected by a majority of one on a biased panel of judges. The US upholds brutal and violent regimes in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, South Korea, and elsewhere. The US denies its own people basic human rights such as free health care. The US funds right-wing terrorists operating in Columbia and Cuba (to name but two countries) and its own CIA carries out terrorism. The US continually ignore UN resolutions on the Cuba blockade, as well as international treaties such as Kyoto. We'll use Blair's own logic: let's invade America!
First of all, the president was elected by the Electoral College, fairly and legitimately. Second, last time I checked, there was no blockade on Cuba, and hadn't been for forty years. International treaties are only binding to the countries that have adopted them, and since our Congress never adopted Kyoto, what is the US "ignoring"? We acknowledge that everyone else is ready to ratify it (though interestingly enough, few countries have). Free health-care IS available to US citizens who can't afford private insurance or are too sick to work, though the claiming of it as a basic human right is in the eye of the beholder only.
And that's just the stuff that's common knowledge. The OP is, in all respects, a blithering moron.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Ah, cross post. Well, I have refuted the incredibly BASIC errors in your OP. Go read something that's not on the world socialist website, okay?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
auntbeast
Shipmate
# 377
|
Posted
IBP, I love it. I think I must post this so that all of the choclate freaks in my office can sign up and go to the aid of Belgium.
As for invading the US, Symon has a point. I have never figured out why it is OK for the USA to do/have all the things they want to take the rest of us to war to keep from the countries they don't like and then claim moral high ground. Fine, kill the rest of us to keep your position. That is what war is for. But skip the rhetoric about it being for our own good. The good guys and the bad guys get hard to figure out when it comes to international politics.
I would however suggest the if someone is going to go after the USA, invasion is not an option, that is why terrorism has been the chosen method. Personally, I prefer a chocolate/champagne embargo, or some other less bloody option than war. (I think it was)Marge Piercy wrote a great short piece once about a system we should adopt that works for birds... Each country would trot out its leader in best plummage and the females of the species would vote on which one was the best and then that ones country would have superiority and set of rights over the other.
To the chocolates troops!
Auntbeast
--------------------
"My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor; and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal" - Mary Shelley (Frankenstein)
Posts: 820 | From: Vancouver, Canada | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It is a far cry from "the US has these things as well" to "therefore we should invade the US". Seeing as I'm not in favour of invading Iraq anyway, it is academic.
I have long been critical of the West (in general) having weapons of mass destruction. I am well aware that others think differently. My opposition dates from a long, long time before the current situation was, well, current... but that's by the by; I've never used it as an argument to invade anywhere.
Another important issue you might want to consider is that the USA is a democracy, and therefore its leaders can be swayed by public opinion. If the case against posession of WoMD is strong, present it. If the case against US foreign policy is strong, again, work to convince people. You may find it a little more tricky to influence Iraqi policy in this manner.
Yes, the USA has used nuclear weapons in war. Yes, I think it was wrong to do so. But, again, there is a massive difference between the circumstances in which this occured and the circumstances in which Saddam Hussein has used WoMD.
Unfortunately, Symon, what good points there might have been in your OP are ruined by being embedded in factually erroneous material, and stated in a rather silly form of rhetoric. I see a devil at the top of my screen picking up the posts, not a comedian.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Symon
Shipmate
# 246
|
Posted
Thanks, Erin, for putting up an argument. You say that Bush was elected fairly by the electoral college. I will not here go into how undemocratic the idea of the electoral college is in itself, because Bush was clearly *not* elected by it. Forgive my British naivety, but I had always supposed that in order for voting to be meaningful it was necessary to count the votes. If they are not all counted, nobody's won anything. That a panel of judges - some of whom had links to Bush - ruled him to be elected does not mean that he was. There *is* a blockade on Cuba, with it being very hard to travel there from the US (where did you get the idea from, Erin, that the blockade no longer existed?), and the US continues to ignore the UN's resoluntions on the blockade on Cuba (when the UN has its annual vote on Cuba, there are usually 3 or 4 countries only voting in favour of the blockade, with a similar number abstaining; even the UK manages to oppose Washington on this one, and vote against the blockade). I am not, I admit, an expert on the health care situation in the USA, but if "free health care" is means-tested then it is not "free health care" as I understand the term. True, whether or not it constitutes a human right is a matter of opinion. Some would argue that my right to criticise my government when nobody can hear me and it will have no impact is more important than my right to free health care (just about still enjoyed in the UK). I disagree. I cannot see what more basic rights a citizen can claim from his society than engough to eat, decent housing, useful work, and free access to health care and education. And Erin, you never answered the point about the USA's support for right-wing terrorism throughout the globe. Incidentally, none of the comments I made are quoted from a "world socialist website". Most socialist webistes are, I freely admit, fairly crap.
Tahnks for your answer, Erin.
Posts: 144 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Symon
Shipmate
# 246
|
Posted
Liberal backslider - thanks for your post. I was, of course, being ironic when I suggested invading America; I am not *seriously* in favour of doing so. This was *meant* as a flippant post.
When you say that the USA is a democracy, I have to disagree. I accept its more democratic than Iraq, but it is still far from being genuinely democratic. You can choose between a very right-wing party (the Democracts) and an extremely right-wing party (the Republicans). Not that this choice means much when they don't can't the votes and a panel of judges with dubious links chooses the winner. Also, I would argue that there can be no political democracy wihtout economic democracy. How can the people of the US run the county when its wealth is owned by a tiny minority?
If you think there are other factual inaccuracies in my post, liberal backslider, please point them out, and I will respond. However, bear in mind that if I had intended my post to be entirely serious I would have posted it on Purgatory.
--------------------
"Christ has come to teach his people himself"
- George Fox
Posts: 144 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
The Electoral College is in our Constitution, and is designed to prevent the huge states from tromping all over the smaller states. And the general election "picks" the Electoral College, so it is hardly undemocratic. I don't have the inclination to go into a detailed explanation of it now, but I think that your admitted lack of knowledge about the process would indicate to you that maybe you shouldn't judge it as being undemocratic. Understand it first, then make judgments.
By blockade, do you mean US sanctions and refusing to trade with Cuba? The US can refuse to trade with whoever it wants, though I think the stance on this is STUPID -- the biggest and most effective weapon the US has is free trade. The only Cuban blockade I'm aware of came during the Cuban missile crisis, and that was in the early 60s.
I cannot answer the stuff about the US supporting "regimes" because I think we're operating in two different worlds here. Any comparison which groups Israel with Saudi Arabia is completely invalid and represents a mindset that I simply cannot effectively argue against.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Pete
Apprentice
# 3606
|
Posted
Hmmmm.
Whilst Erin is correct about there being no blockade on Cuba the US has stated it will refuse to trade with any nation who trades with Cuba.
On the whole issue on WMDs/human rights, I find it particularly interesting that the US hasn't proposed checks and attacks on North Korea and some others...maybe the fact is the Bush is fairly certain there are no WMDs in Iraq so he can have his little war in relative safety....
Let's face it, this war is about oil. As far as the west is concerned if it can masquerade as something else then that's great....
--------------------
May God give you his deepest peace and most massive joy. Always
Mr.Pete.
Posts: 14 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Symon
Shipmate
# 246
|
Posted
Erin, thanks for the reply. You point out that the electoral college is in your consitution as if this makes it democratic, which of course in itself it doesn't. While I appreciate that an argument can be made for the idea that the college is democratic, my main point was that the college did not choose Bush anyway. You didn't answer this point.
In Europe teh refusal by the US to trade with Cuba is referred to as a "blockade". There's obviously a semantic difference here. I'm glad you're against this blockade (or "refusal to trade") as you might prefer to call it. I agree with you that the USA's strongest weapon is free trade: it has been using it for years to oppress and exploit millions of people around the globe.
Why will you not engage in an argument about the USA international support for terrorism? You dismiss my "mindset" as something you cannot argue with. My mindset is that of a working class British person who has seen his own country effectively colonised by the USA. I do not understand why you refuse to engage with this.
--------------------
"Christ has come to teach his people himself"
- George Fox
Posts: 144 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yo-Yo
Shipmate
# 2541
|
Posted
Can't we invade Australia and cull all cricket playing males over 18. That should give us a fighting chance in the Ashes! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Mr Pete, Bush did mention N. Korea in his evil axis speech and I think Cheney (sp?) has also spoken of them, Iran and China as being on the US's list of enemies. He was beating a drum against China even before 9/11 leat year. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"The purpose of life... is to love whoever is around to be loved." - Kurt Vonnegut jnr
Posts: 371 | From: XS | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
The Electoral College DID choose Bush. He wouldn't be president if it hadn't. I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with the US electoral process prior to making uninformed judgments about it. The Supreme Court's decision was about the multitude of recounts in Florida (and God knows we had enough of them), that's it. This is why I won't debate the other stuff with you -- how can I debate someone that I have to educate on every point along the way? That's not a debate, that's a history/economics/government lesson, and I do enough teaching in my paid work to not want to do it here.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Bush may have been elected legitimately according to the US voting system (personally I think this is a very debateable point), but if I had been in his shoes I could not have taken office knowing that the majority of voters did not want me.
My point is that, for a person (and his party) to start his presidency, so obviously more intent on taking power than following any moral scruples, It seems folly to accept at face value his pronouncements about Iraq's activities and intentions. After all I suspect that a successful bashing of Saddam would be a vote winner. It would certainly help to divert attention from his apparently unsuccessful attempts to obliterate Al Quaeda.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
Why invade America - it's already been done. 'The Mouse That Roared' was one of the funniest books I ever read (and even a reasonable film).
For those who never read it, it's about a tiny mid-european nation who are going bankrupt, and looking around at Germany etc., they decide that anyone who gets beaten in a war with America then gets tons of economic aid. So they decide to invade America with a force of 20 long-bowmen, aiming to get soundly thrashed then reap the aid. Things go wrong when they end up accidently capturing a scientist with a super-powerful bomb (and a gorgeous daughter IIRC)...
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCC
Shipmate
# 3137
|
Posted
Flippant point first. The only justification to invade the U.S. is that posited in the Peter Sellers film "The mouse that roared", where a tiny European state worked out that in order to obtain economic benefits from the U.S. the thing to do was declare war, send an invasion (about ten men with bows and arrows) to New York, and then surrender. Unfortunately the plan went wrong (or right) when they happened on a new type of bomb being developed in New York, and all the superpowers came begging to their borders.
Secondly, while Bush received less votes than his opponent, he was elected according to the Constitution, by the electoral college meeting on the appointed day. What the Supreme court decided was who the electors for the State of Florida were to be. In a first past the post system, like in the U.K. it is always possible for the party with fewer votes nationally to win an election, it happened in the UK in 1951 and Feb. 1974. Personally I would like to see first past the post scrapped, but its retention doesn't make us undemocratic, it just means our democracy is flawed. I doubt there is any democracy without some problem or another. The U.S., with its open elections (congress evry 2 years, president every 4 years, restricted to only two terms, is a hell of a lot more democratic than Iraq, China, North Korea, Cuba (who I have some sympathy for where U.S, foreign policy is concerned though) etc.
Thirdly, we are not at war with Iraq...yet. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. administration has hawks and less hawkish people in it, and so far Powell and, I believe Blair, have had a restraining influence. What we have is a threat, and we can legitimately debate the threat!
The thought of Hussein with WoMD is as horrible as the thought of Hitler with them. The man has used chemical weapons against his own people. He has shown what he is capable of.
But his people must support him, I gather he obtained a 99.9% approval rating in the latest referendum on his leadership.
Which just goes to show, doesn't it.
--------------------
mcc____
Posts: 419 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCC
Shipmate
# 3137
|
Posted
Sorry for double post, but as I was beaten to the pst by Linzc I can only say
Bugger
--------------------
mcc____
Posts: 419 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Bush may have been elected legitimately according to the US voting system (personally I think this is a very debateable point), but if I had been in his shoes I could not have taken office knowing that the majority of voters did not want me....
Why not? Bill Clinton did exactly that, not once but twice. He never achieved anything close to a majority.
And the honest recounts in Florida all showed Bush *gaining* votes, interestingly enough. Ah, mythology...
As for thoughts of invading the US, do bear in mind that our Second Amendment protections have not yet been entirely erased.
Finally, I say this as someone who does not feel that the US should be Policeman to the World, let alone Sugar Daddy to Political Regimes Elsewhere. And I don't particularly want to invade Iraq.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Rossweisse // crazed libertarian
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
marmot
Mountain mammal
# 479
|
Posted
Cripes, not again. Would someone please give this maggoty old carcass a proper cremation?
--------------------
Join me in "The Legion of Bad Monkeys"
Posts: 2754 | From: The land of Saint Damien | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Symon, you seem to be aware of William Blum’s ‘Rogue State’, in which he argues that if we judge the US by the standard it uses to baptise others into rogue state status then America defines itself as the rogue state. Is this the book that has prompted this?
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Hefts thread on toasting fork
I know that some people wish to make Tony, the Dead Horses host, truly welcome and at home in Hell. Very charitable of you.
But, as you've no doubt all guessed, this is one pony that's been flogged to death, and then some.
So, if you wish to post any more on the great Pond War (America vs. Britain - sorry Oz, you don't get a look in), you may follow this thread down to Dead Horses, and hope Tony doesn't close it before you get there.
Viki, hellhost
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Symon:
My mindset is that of a working class British person who has seen his own country effectively colonised by the USA.
gggthhhhzzzzzzzzzzzrt?!¬¬?!
Is this stupid or rascist, or a heady cocktail of the two?
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Hefts thread on toasting fork
I know that some people wish to make Tony, the Dead Horses host, truly welcome and at home in Hell. Very charitable of you.
But, as you've no doubt all guessed, this is one pony that's been flogged to death, and then some.
So, if you wish to post any more on the great Pond War (America vs. Britain - sorry Oz, you don't get a look in), you may follow this thread down to Dead Horses, and hope Tony doesn't close it before you get there.
Viki, hellhost
Thanks Viki - I think!!
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Will all future posters to this thread note the the Special Rules relating to Hell are not in force here and that the full 10Cs are followed, in both the letter and the spirit.
And if that doesn't kill the thread, nothing will! (Short of me doing it by force, of course!!)
Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
brodavid
Shipmate
# 460
|
Posted
NO FAIR!!! A thread gets started that has blatant America-bashing, liberal whining, easily disprovable errors in fact, and Erin getting wound up, all at once, and I'm too busy to get to it until it has been moved to Dead Horses, where I have to be nice! ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
It's too late, the fun is over.
I curse my broken-down water heater! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Brodavid
"Prayer can do anything that God can do."
- E.M. Bounds
Posts: 702 | From: Mississippi, USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MCC:
In a first past the post system, like in the U.K. it is always possible for the party with fewer votes nationally to win an election, it happened in the UK in 1951 and Feb. 1974.
That can happen in Canada's system, too. And I thought we were a democracy.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MCC:
[QB]In a first past the post system, like in the U.K. it is always possible for the party with fewer votes nationally to win an election, it happened in the UK in 1951 and Feb. 1974.[QB]
How?
It's early, my head's not working. I know I'm missing something basic, but I can't work out where. ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Let's say you win a slim majority (say 51%) of the votes in a enough states to get a majority (say 51%) of the electoral votes. The other party wins a massive majority (say 80%) of the votes in the rest of the states.
You could have, say, 51% of 51% plus 20% of 49% of the votes, which is approx. 36% (compared to approx. 64% for the losing party - assuming no independents) of the popular votes, yet you win because you have 51% of the electoral votes.
The idea is that if you win a state with 51% of the popular vote, you get 100% of their electoral votes.
(Correct me if I am wrong, Erin, or someone who understands it better.)
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899
|
Posted
Ah, there's the missing bit. Thank you.
mmmmm, humiliation. Hurrah for the anonimity of the internet.
Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
In most cases, that's true. I think there are some states that go for proportional representation with their electoral votes, but I couldn't tell you which ones.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
starrina
The rose warrior
# 3549
|
Posted
[The thought of Hussein with WoMD is as horrible as the thought of Hitler with them. The man has used chemical weapons against his own people. He has shown what he is capable of.
But his people must support him, I gather he obtained a 99.9% approval rating in the latest referendum on his leadership.
Which just goes to show, doesn't it.[/QB][/QUOTE]
*Pedantic*
Apparently things in the east are not quite so clear cut as all that. Saddam may have used WMD against people living in the terrirory he governs but they were not "his own people" but his traditional enemies, and the threat they were posing to his (admittedly undemocratic and despotic regime) was great. Wether that makes a difference or not in the long run I don't know, but I don;t doubt the US govt would hesitate to do the same.
--------------------
"what have you been doing while Bells has been maturing?"
"Drinking better whiskey."
Posts: 275 | From: the kwoon | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Why not? Bill Clinton did exactly that, not once but twice. He never achieved anything close to a majority.
I must beg to differ. CLinton DID recieve a majority of votes both times. The Repubicans don't like that fact, but too bad, There it is.
The winner of the election of 1888 did not get the majority of the votes, but won the electoral college anyway. IIRC that is the only OTHERT time (besides BJunior) that this has happened.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
[QBI must beg to differ. CLinton DID recieve a majority of votes both times. The Repubicans don't like that fact, but too bad, There it is.[/QB]
I'm afraid you are wrong.
In 1992:
Clinton - 43.3%
Bush - 37.7%
Perot - 19.0%
In 1996:
Clinton - 49.2%
Dole - 40.7%
Perot - 8.4%
In both elections Clinton received a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes.
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Just bringing up a point raised on the Illinois death penalty thread by Erin.
On another BBS which I frequent, not a Christian one by any means, the consensus view among the Americans there is that Bush was not elected.
They are as sure of it and as dismissive of the view that he was as people here are of the view that he wasn't. It's like, crystal clear to them.
They're not stupid people. They're educated professionals. At least one person I know who holds this view is a lawyer and (I'm fairly sure) knows what she's talking about on this issue.
Now I don't actually have any opinion on whether Bush was elected or not*, but it strikes me that something whose reality or lack thereof can both be declared by equally educated, informed and intelligent people as an "obvious fact" is so far outside the bounds of objective fact that we can probably never really know whether it's true or not.
So I don't think it'll ever be settled either way. Frankly, Bush IS the President, and he's going to be for at least two more years, and most probably for another seven.
I would think that if the Democrats really wanted to get rid of him, they should set about figuring out a way to win the next election, and stop whinging about something which will never be proven.
________________________
*although you should be aware that political pundits on the BBC are still saying that he wasn't, and the news as reported here at the time certainly gave the impression that he was - is it any surprise most Brits, who, like most of the Western world, still believe anything at all if it's on the telly, seem to think he wasn't elected?
Me, I just think he's a t**t.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
So I don't think it'll ever be settled either way. Frankly, Bush IS the President, and he's going to be for at least two more years, and most probably for another seven.
It's not quite that bad - at most he'll be president for another six years.
quote:
Me, I just think he's a t**t.
Agreed.
He might have been elected - but we'll never know for sure, given all the problems with votes being counted (and not counted). In my mind, he's president because the Supreme Court said so, not because the populace elected him.
The best thing the Democrats could do at this point is to pick a viable candidate for president and pool all their money behind him. But chances are they'll expend all their energy and money in the primaries and get their butts whipped in the general election.
If we're gonna get invaded, could we take a vote first on who gets to do it? My choice would be Canada.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
You'll just have to wait. Our soldier is on his coffee break right now.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
This will explain everything.
USA experiencing technical difficulties
You'll need a Flash plug-in for your browser. (You can download one for free from the Net, but I don't know the site.)
Anyway, well worth seeing! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I can't find it now, but Laura posted a very thorough explanation as to why Bush was, in fact, elected.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
I do remember it, and frankly, I do believe Laura, because she utterly knows what she is talking about (and she's got no reason to lie).
But that wasn't what I was saying.
It just struck me as odd that people with similar qualifications should be saying precisely the opposite thing with equal vehemence, as if it's obvious or something. And as I said before, the general opinion of the British media on both the left and right wings is that he wasn't.
Similarly, those American sources you hear from here are generally those which agree with this view - for example, it seems fairly clear from me that people such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are both far, far more respected here than they are in the States.
Is it any wonder you get us ignorant Brits stating that he wasn't elected as if it's an obvious fact that everyone knows?
It's not an excuse. More an explanation.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
Similarly, those American sources you hear from here are generally those which agree with this view - for example, it seems fairly clear from me that people such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are both far, far more respected here than they are in the States.
And therein lies the problem. A note for all non-Americans: neither one is a reliable source for whether or not the sky is blue. Please stop paying attention to them.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I'm afraid you are wrong. [...] In both elections Clinton received a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes.
JARGON ALERT - in most English-speaking countries outside North America the word "plurality" is rare and jargonific. People use "majority" to mean the difference between the 1st & 2nd share of votes.
So if Alice gets 10 votes, Bob gets 8, and Carol 6 we say that Alice has a majority of 2 votes.
The situation that you describe as "majority" we'd call "absolute majority". And it is even rarer here than there.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
So I don't think it'll ever be settled either way. Frankly, Bush IS the President, and he's going to be for at least two more years, and most probably for another seven.
Another 7?! Take that back, sir!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Ok, 6, actually.
I'm sorry, but it's probably going to happen, isn't it? I know it's an appalling prospect (we're going to have to have his missiles in our country. YAY. ) but I'll eat my keyboard if he isn't reelected.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Wood,
Bush faces a number of major crises, all of which pose a possibility of grave consequences for the American people, and none of which can be ignored for the next two years.
If a myriad of pieces all fall into place, his re-elction is assured, but it will take very little going badly for things to become quite unglued.
Note the veritable feeding frenzy of Democrats eager, at this point, to run against him. Note too a slip in his approval ratings.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
the little dweeblet's approval rating's fallen to 58%.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
