<!--QuoteBegin--Vober+Oct. 17 2002,21:55--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Vober @ Oct. 17 2002,21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--StUpId_Fo0L+Oct. 17 2002,20:50--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (StUpId_Fo0L @ Oct. 17 2002,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->(and I like parentheses.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats the problem <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> Anyways I get your position, but just so you know Iraq would only have potential to attack someone close to them *cough*Isreal*cough*. They dont have intercontianetal ballistic missile capibilities...
Also when you say 'he' did not let our inspecters inspect, do ya mean bush or suddam?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Im saying saddam wouldnt let them inspect(why would bush not let them?) and also about my parentheses they are extra stuff added in what I say to help you understand what I mean or know what I think and they dont throw you off, meaning they arent always the most important in what I say but some extra info. like example: jack is whack(hes dumb) and he likes crack. see? But the explosion might be so big that it might hit sorta near expolsives making the expolsion bigger and the hit another nuke and cause a chain reaction. My theory of the end of the earth is a nuke hitting the wrong spot(near a nuke) and cause a gigantic chain reaction and barely hitting another nuke and so on. You see nukes are bad! they are tooooo destructive. But I dont saddam would have a big enough nuke for it to even reach outside of another country *cough*world counters with nukes*cough*
*edit* but george bush's brother cheated by making fake votes for him in his state that he is/was governor and the found out *edit*
i dont think that even if he didn't get their "blessing," the war is going to start. i think that we are going to charge in with guns drawn and missles flying, we are probably going to kick them good.
lol you dont know what kind of war it would be if it was just us.... It would be a building and alleyway war(like ww2) and before it was everyone shooting him in the middle of the desert. So we wouldnt beat them very good, but we still would beat him(due to better weaponry and better training and more troops(well actually we have a shortage of troops due to people going to college)) and if we went to war wed probably need more troops so there would probably be a draft(nooooooooo!!!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> so then people in this forum would have to go and try and kill saddam while getting shot at. Wars are bad but sometimes the only option, but this is not the only option. If saddam did nuke someone, I hope its china so they catch him and do some of their famous torchering on him.
Well first of all the Electoral College is a very antiquated system that was based upon the majority of the population’s illiteracy. They just really couldn't have been trusted to make intelligent or informed decisions. But now, as someone else stated earlier, mass media has given the people quick, easy, and effective means in which to make an intelligent and informed decision. Someone else said we should "rise up" and take the power back to ourselves. It simply wouldn't happen. The majority of the population has what I will call the "sheep" syndrome. Basically this means they are in the state of mind that their "herder", the government, is more trustworthy then themselves and is more capable of decision making then they are themselves. It’s a sad state of affairs really, and now with Bush in office the forecast has turned even darker. He conveniently had a major conflict drop into his lap, not to downplay the tragedy one bit, but he's milking it for all its worth. He has many people thinking the right thing to do is completely destroy all anti-American countries. When he says this he continues to support things that separate us from the world. Such as tighter borders and blockades on trade from other countries, like Cuba, which could benefit greatly from the opening of trade with us. The Bush family, I say family because he has largely the same views and attitudes as his father, also has ties with the oil industry and shares many of the same views as them. He isn't readily supporting other forms of fuel besides fossil fuels. His foreign policies are, to say it lightly, sub-par. He is using tactics that animalize and separate "America’s" enemies from the human race. He does nothing to improve the rest of the world’s view of America and only worsens it by his shielded and uncompromising attitude. I've gone off on a few different tangents and strayed a bit. Excuse me for my ramblings but it really is a sad state of affairs.
EDIT: Now I'm not so sure the Electoral College is such a bad idea... *^cough^*
2 things: 1: If we would go to war anyways, why wait any longer? If that were the case we would have already been to Iraq and back.... 2: If we did goto war, we probly will not send in only masses of troops. We will bomb from long ranges, send in covert missions, then occupy cities with well trained forces(i.e. NO DRAFT)
yes but havent you heard, WE HAVE A SMALL ARMY, why do you think that theres so many commercials for army, navy, and airforce? they even got navy infomercials!! I heard about it on some news thing. Besides if we did go to war, dont you think he would have alot more troops everywhere then when we started killing lots of him dont you think he would figure out that we were doing covert operations? and hes got anti-air artillery but we can hit him from farther away than he can hit us so we have a huge advantage just from that. YOU CANT SEND MASSES OF TROOPS WITHOUT THE MASSES. havent you noticed how almost everyone you know is going to college??? that makes our army smaller, and people are getting it into their head that if you join the army you inflict and recieve pain and suffering(if theres wars). It's a fact that we need more troops. Id give you links to sources but I didnt get my info off of the internet, and I dont wanna spend an hour or two to find it. We cant be too arrogant here, we make ourselves feel invincible and we arent, we can beef up our security and defense but things still make it through...
lol funny. heh Im gonna go to that site now <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->
I would have to say I think we are extremly well protected. Other countries fight all the time just in inner rebelion due to internal conflict(poverty mainly). When is the last time enemy troops came into America? Exactly. 9/11 was not really a military attack, so should not be talked about(plus that would go for days...)
And is everyone attackin Bush, or when they say bush do they mean Government?
I dunno. but bush is bush!!!!!!!! he cant talk lol hes grreeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttt. I dont care about this topic anymore so Im gonna stop postin what i know/think....... (unless its not about this but that would be off topic so I wont post unless I have to)
<!--QuoteBegin--StUpId_Fo0L+Oct. 17 2002,21:50--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (StUpId_Fo0L @ Oct. 17 2002,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->No I'm american. But what I'm saying is that he didnt let our inspectors inspect his stuff and one of them escaped and said he was trying to build a nuke. North Korea is in no economical postion to build a nuke. They are falling apart. But in the future they may because we think they arent capable of anything. But just think of sadam, if we just sit around he might all of a sudden have a nuke and threaten to fire on us(the u.s.a) and then we'll have a war worse than the cold war (with russia and people scared of the u.s.a and russia nuking each other) because saddam is crazy(he shoots anyone he doesnt like and doesnt feel bad about it(like hitler who killed lots of jewish people because he didnt like them, hitler was very bad and what if saddam gets as powerful as he did?). But yes it would be bad to just go over there and shoot everyone, But if we dont get assistance soon we should go over there and demand he lets us inspects his stuff that the treaty he signed allowed us to do and that he broke, we should attack him with full force and not even give him a chance to sign a treaty again. Yes wars are bad and that might cause world war3 but sooner or later hes gonna do something real bad to the people he doesnt like and we're all gonna be kickin ourselves because everyone didnt listen to our oil thirsty illiterate president. To say again I am American, I just dont like to write so I dont care how I do it.(and I like parentheses.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> RUssia built nukes until they went bankrupt.. and then some...
Anybody with 4 kg lump of uranium (about the size of a softball) can make a nuclear weapon.
And yes, it does look like the world is going to hell in a handbasket. If not now, then later, but eventually, we will #### ourselves over.
If you're a religious person (me), there's a vague feeling of acceptance about the whole thing. I know Silver Fox is gonna get ###### at me for this, and if any of you moderators think i'm overstepping the lines, just send me a PM.
Anyway, I have faith that until the day when God decides things are over, we will continue to pull ourselves from the brink of doom, utter distruction an asymptote to the function of human progress. We <b>will</b> continue to build, tear down, and rebuild our cities and families. We will continue to live our lives as we see fit, living, loving, and dieing as we deem it fit. BUt life will, inevitably, go on.
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Oct. 17 2002,23:17--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct. 17 2002,23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're a religious person (me), there's a vague feeling of acceptance about the whole thing. I know Silver Fox is gonna get ###### at me for this
Anyway, I have faith that until the day when God decides things are over, we will continue to pull ourselves from the brink of doom, utter distruction an asymptote to the function of human progress. We <b>will</b> continue to build, tear down, and rebuild our cities and families. We will continue to live our lives as we see fit, living, loving, and dieing as we deem it fit. BUt life will, inevitably, go on.
'Till that day, I'm not gonna sweat it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm interesting Idea, dont you believe in free will? If man wants to destroy himself, man will.
<!--QuoteBegin--Vober+Oct. 18 2002,01<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Vober @ Oct. 18 2002,01<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->1)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Oct. 17 2002,23:17--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct. 17 2002,23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're a religious person (me), there's a vague feeling of acceptance about the whole thing. I know Silver Fox is gonna get ###### at me for this
Anyway, I have faith that until the day when God decides things are over, we will continue to pull ourselves from the brink of doom, utter distruction an asymptote to the function of human progress. We <b>will</b> continue to build, tear down, and rebuild our cities and families. We will continue to live our lives as we see fit, living, loving, and dieing as we deem it fit. BUt life will, inevitably, go on.
'Till that day, I'm not gonna sweat it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm interesting Idea, dont you believe in free will? If man wants to destroy himself, man will.
Also why would sliver fox get mad?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do, If man wants to destroy himself, he will, I agree wholeheartedly...
BUt, a mon only self terminates for one of two reasons:
1) Intense pain. Belief that death is better than what they are living through now.
Sure, people do this all the time. It's sad, but true.
Thing is though, this requires no fear of death. Having no fear of death either requires a strong backing in religion, or, simply put, a distroyed sense of reality, bordering on insanity. Can you accurately call the the will of an insane man free?
2) Belief that they are sacrificing themselves for higher purpose. Also includes Religion, Patriotism, or a distorted sense of the world around a person.
Patriotism isn't really an issue on this one, as if you self terminate on a nuclear scale, you are effectively destroying your country.
So, it boils down to religion. In both cases, as far as I can see/ think at 1:44 AM.
Aaaaand, the vast majority of true followers of a religion that commit acts for their religion, wether it be talking to your friends about your beliefs, or a suicide bombing, commit these acts in the true belif that that is what their God(s) want them to do.
I'm sory, I'm pulling this thread waaay off track. I'd love to continue this discussion, but I don't wanna spam this thread with philosophical discussion, unless the moddies say it's OK.
Lets take this up on PMs, or AIM. My S/N is Legionnaired, I'm on there most of the day.
EDIT: Silver Fox yelled at me for wrecking a thread with my religious view once... it as a picture of a guy with a bunring bag over his head or something...
Anyway, I've tried to watch what I say here since then, but my judgement is either wearing down from the lack of sleep, or I'm deciding to be bold with my faith. I'll let you know in the morning.
...How long until the universe implodes? You know, the reverse Big Bang. I hear that scientists are estimating it will all go *poof* in a few years now. They can call it the Big Squoosh. Oh wait, no one will be around after that, what a pity. Pfft, so what if a continent or two or seven gets blasted into oblivion.
lol but i said <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->sleep on it and talk about it in the morning<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> jeez dont you sleep? its not morning(well actually it is but barely 1:30am here) or do you just sleep all day and wake up at 1<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->0? bah too tired cant think well...
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Oct. 17 2002,23:37--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Spooge @ Oct. 17 2002,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just for the fun of it, I thought I'd try a picture...
<img src="http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/usa_cnty.jpg" border="0"><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just for the fun of it, compare <a href="http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/density90.jpg" target="_blank">this map of the US' population density (0.61 MB)</a> to yours.
The map also states preliminary results, I specficly remember Gore had more votes throughout the entire election. Bush only won electoraly and even that is shady.
EDIT: Nukes are extremely difficult to make, even if you have the uranium. Weapons grade uranium is also very hard to obtain, as well as intercontinental ballistic missles. Although russia has a ready supply hidden away in abandened military compounds.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct. 18 2002,06:13--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct. 18 2002,06:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just for the fun of it, compare <a href="http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/density90.jpg" target="_blank">this map of the US' population density (0.61 MB)</a> to yours.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks! You've saved me the trouble.
This is the perfect example of how our Electoral College works. The LARGE RED areas near the inside of the country do not have the densly populated cities. But, thanks to our electoral college, they're vote can be just as important.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Oct. 18 2002,08:47--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Spooge @ Oct. 18 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I suggest you study up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Been there, done that.
Even the less populated states should have influence on federal politics - that's why every of your states sends two Senators.
The President, however, is supposed to be elected in 'free, equal and secret elections' - one (wo)man, one vote. No regulative strings attached.
The college is, as Rob pointed out earlier, a remaining of a time in which this equal vote wasn't possible due to organisatoric and educational issues, which are, as you'll have to admit, no longer present.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct. 18 2002,08:54--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct. 18 2002,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even the less populated states should have influence on federal politics - that's why every of your states sends two Senators.
The President, however, is supposed to be elected in 'free, equal and secret elections' - one (wo)man, one vote. No regulative strings attached.
The college is, as Rob pointed out earlier, a remaining of a time in which this equal vote wasn't possible due to organisatoric and educational issues, which are, as you'll have to admit, no longer present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, 2 Senators. And Congressmen and women to represent them based on population numbers attained from Census. Hence, the electoral college.
The elections are free and equal and secret. Except in southern Florida where apparently nobody knows how to tie their own shoes or where to find them.
The college was not created becuase the Founding Fathers thought the populous lacked intelligence. That's a common myth which resurfaced in 2000. The Founding Fathers had vast foresight and knew that the country would grow. But they also distrusted a central government (and other states to a certain extent) and did not want small, dense pockets determining who would govern the entire country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Congressmen and women to represent them based on population numbers attained from Census. Hence, the electoral college.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm trying and trying, but I can't see what the one thing is supposed to say about the other. Representation of areas with low population density is ensured by the Senate, the Congress is supposed to reflect the true face of the population.
The argument that the Electoral College is necessary to give the rural areas vote a voice (Which is a myth itself as the urban population was also split about the election - Gore won the most votes, but as on the whole, not by a very large margin, if I'm not mistaken.) is simply not valid - those areas already got their polotical voice in another way.
I don't know what you assume as the base of your argumentation, but when all is said and done, not the land, but the people are supposed to elect the president, and if the majority of the people lives in urban areas, then they've got every right to vote the president they want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Founding Fathers had vast foresight and knew that the country would grow. But they also distrusted a central government (and other states to a certain extent) and did not want small, dense pockets determining who would govern the entire country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please. We both know there were <i>very</i> different opinions about whether the US should become a loose federation or a closely knit central state in the time of the founding fathers. Also, I was putting 'educational' at the second place behind 'organisatoric' on purpose - at the time, it simply wasn't possible to organize a complete election in all states simulatunously. Putting any deeper meaning in this institution of pure pragmatism is - at least in my opinion - pointless.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct. 18 2002,11:03--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct. 18 2002,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm trying and trying, but I can't see what the one thing is supposed to say about the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're near the end but I'll give it one more shot if for no other reason than to help younger voters to understand that their vote can and does count.
Here is a very simple example:
50 states. 1 state has 1,000,000 people in it. The other 49 have 10,000 people in it. ( I did say this was simplistic but it will make the point)
If the popular vote was the controlling factor in the election, the candidates would only have to convince the first state ( and maybe a couple nearby ) that he or she was right for the position. Even the combination of all 49 other states would not add up to the first. This means the candidates wouldn't bother reaching out to the more distant states. The electoral college removes some of that by reducing the numbers statistically. The larger state still has the greater value but the smaller states together could swing the vote. Again, it's not just the individual voter, it's also about the states (U.S. means United STATES). Because the STATES have value in the electoral system, candidates are more inclined to campaign across the country. It also means that an individual in a state has more voting power than an individual in a country.
I also think you give the public too much credit. Only about half of the population actually votes. Maybe, just maybe that could start to change if people understood just how valuable their vote can be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the popular vote was the controlling factor in the election, the candidates would only have to convince the first state ( and maybe a couple nearby ) that he or she was right for the position.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea. OK, (s)he would never pass a law because (s)he'd face 98 Senators of the other party, but why bother?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->(U.S. means United STATES)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Could you tell me please what 'democracy' means?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because the STATES have value in the electoral system, candidates are more inclined to campaign across the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I partially agree here, but that just wouldn't change without of an electoral college - urban areas may be concentrated, but they're still spread out over the whole country. Also, no president could ever win an election by one of the parts of population alone, simply as they're by nature all divided in their opinions. I daresay that your average farmland county wouldn't see less of a campaign in a direct election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also think you give the public too much credit. Only about half of the population actually votes. Maybe, just maybe that could start to change if people understood just how valuable their vote can be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For once, we agree. People would start voting if they had the feeling their vote had power. Indirect electoral institutions, as the college is one, won't help getting that point across.
By the way, yes, I give the public much credit. I happen to know some damn fine chaps who belong to it, don't you?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct. 18 2002,12:13--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct. 18 2002,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. Could you tell me please what 'democracy' means?
Another misconception. The U.S. is not a true Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.
I partially agree here, but that just wouldn't change without of an electoral college - urban areas may be concentrated, but they're still spread out over the whole country.
Take another look at your population distribution map.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another misconception. The U.S. is not a true Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gosh. Someone oughta tell Jefferson. Seriously, I'm not referring to your true form of state (which at least in theory qualifies for both), but to what the people <i>you</i> are advocating in this whole debate use as one of their main arguments for any kind of action ("We will bring peace, justice and democracy to Afghanistan / Iraq").
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take another look at your population distribution map.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK. Take another look at the rest of my argumentation in the meanwhile, will you?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Whew.... This is wearing me out. Guess I better lay off the Twinkies <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
I don't know if anyone other than Nemisis and I are still viewing this thread, but if anyone is interested in the exactly-unexact distinction between Democracy and Republic, here's a link to some pretty good reads:
I tip my hat Nem, it's refreshing to have a good civil debate. <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Thats the problem <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> Anyways I get your position, but just so you know Iraq would only have potential to attack someone close to them *cough*Isreal*cough*. They dont have intercontianetal ballistic missile capibilities...
Also when you say 'he' did not let our inspecters inspect, do ya mean bush or suddam?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im saying saddam wouldnt let them inspect(why would bush not let them?) and also about my parentheses they are extra stuff added in what I say to help you understand what I mean or know what I think and they dont throw you off, meaning they arent always the most important in what I say but some extra info. like example: jack is whack(hes dumb) and he likes crack. see? But the explosion might be so big that it might hit sorta near expolsives making the expolsion bigger and the hit another nuke and cause a chain reaction. My theory of the end of the earth is a nuke hitting the wrong spot(near a nuke) and cause a gigantic chain reaction and barely hitting another nuke and so on. You see nukes are bad! they are tooooo destructive. But I dont saddam would have a big enough nuke for it to even reach outside of another country *cough*world counters with nukes*cough*
*edit* but george bush's brother cheated by making fake votes for him in his state that he is/was governor and the found out *edit*
EDIT: Now I'm not so sure the Electoral College is such a bad idea... *^cough^*
1: If we would go to war anyways, why wait any longer? If that were the case we would have already been to Iraq and back....
2: If we did goto war, we probly will not send in only masses of troops. We will bomb from long ranges, send in covert missions, then occupy cities with well trained forces(i.e. NO DRAFT)
<img src="http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/usa_cnty.jpg" border="0">
And is everyone attackin Bush, or when they say bush do they mean Government?
RUssia built nukes until they went bankrupt.. and then some...
Anybody with 4 kg lump of uranium (about the size of a softball) can make a nuclear weapon.
And yes, it does look like the world is going to hell in a handbasket. If not now, then later, but eventually, we will #### ourselves over.
If you're a religious person (me), there's a vague feeling of acceptance about the whole thing. I know Silver Fox is gonna get ###### at me for this, and if any of you moderators think i'm overstepping the lines, just send me a PM.
Anyway, I have faith that until the day when God decides things are over, we will continue to pull ourselves from the brink of doom, utter distruction an asymptote to the function of human progress. We <b>will</b> continue to build, tear down, and rebuild our cities and families. We will continue to live our lives as we see fit, living, loving, and dieing as we deem it fit. BUt life will, inevitably, go on.
'Till that day, I'm not gonna sweat it.
Anyway, I have faith that until the day when God decides things are over, we will continue to pull ourselves from the brink of doom, utter distruction an asymptote to the function of human progress. We <b>will</b> continue to build, tear down, and rebuild our cities and families. We will continue to live our lives as we see fit, living, loving, and dieing as we deem it fit. BUt life will, inevitably, go on.
'Till that day, I'm not gonna sweat it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm interesting Idea, dont you believe in free will? If man wants to destroy himself, man will.
Also why would sliver fox get mad?
Anyway, I have faith that until the day when God decides things are over, we will continue to pull ourselves from the brink of doom, utter distruction an asymptote to the function of human progress. We <b>will</b> continue to build, tear down, and rebuild our cities and families. We will continue to live our lives as we see fit, living, loving, and dieing as we deem it fit. BUt life will, inevitably, go on.
'Till that day, I'm not gonna sweat it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm interesting Idea, dont you believe in free will? If man wants to destroy himself, man will.
Also why would sliver fox get mad?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do, If man wants to destroy himself, he will, I agree wholeheartedly...
BUt, a mon only self terminates for one of two reasons:
1) Intense pain. Belief that death is better than what they are living through now.
Sure, people do this all the time. It's sad, but true.
Thing is though, this requires no fear of death. Having no fear of death either requires a strong backing in religion, or, simply put, a distroyed sense of reality, bordering on insanity. Can you accurately call the the will of an insane man free?
2) Belief that they are sacrificing themselves for higher purpose. Also includes Religion, Patriotism, or a distorted sense of the world around a person.
Patriotism isn't really an issue on this one, as if you self terminate on a nuclear scale, you are effectively destroying your country.
So, it boils down to religion. In both cases, as far as I can see/ think at 1:44 AM.
Aaaaand, the vast majority of true followers of a religion that commit acts for their religion, wether it be talking to your friends about your beliefs, or a suicide bombing, commit these acts in the true belif that that is what their God(s) want them to do.
I'm sory, I'm pulling this thread waaay off track. I'd love to continue this discussion, but I don't wanna spam this thread with philosophical discussion, unless the moddies say it's OK.
Lets take this up on PMs, or AIM. My S/N is Legionnaired, I'm on there most of the day.
EDIT: Silver Fox yelled at me for wrecking a thread with my religious view once... it as a picture of a guy with a bunring bag over his head or something...
Anyway, I've tried to watch what I say here since then, but my judgement is either wearing down from the lack of sleep, or I'm deciding to be bold with my faith. I'll let you know in the morning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->sleep on it and talk about it in the morning<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
jeez dont you sleep? its not morning(well actually it is but barely 1:30am here) or do you just sleep all day and wake up at 1<!--emo&:0--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'><!--endemo-->0? bah too tired cant think well...
<img src="http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/usa_cnty.jpg" border="0"><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just for the fun of it, compare <a href="http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/images/density90.jpg" target="_blank">this map of the US' population density (0.61 MB)</a> to yours.
EDIT: Nukes are extremely difficult to make, even if you have the uranium. Weapons grade uranium is also very hard to obtain, as well as intercontinental ballistic missles. Although russia has a ready supply hidden away in abandened military compounds.
Thanks! You've saved me the trouble.
This is the perfect example of how our Electoral College works. The LARGE RED areas near the inside of the country do not have the densly populated cities. But, thanks to our electoral college, they're vote can be just as important.
Thanks again, Nem!
I know how minority representation works - this isn't it.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 18 2002,08:40-->
And the New Yorkers will have more electoral college votes. The system just tries to level the field.
Been there, done that.
Even the less populated states should have influence on federal politics - that's why every of your states sends two Senators.
The President, however, is supposed to be elected in 'free, equal and secret elections' - one (wo)man, one vote. No regulative strings attached.
The college is, as Rob pointed out earlier, a remaining of a time in which this equal vote wasn't possible due to organisatoric and educational issues, which are, as you'll have to admit, no longer present.
The President, however, is supposed to be elected in 'free, equal and secret elections' - one (wo)man, one vote. No regulative strings attached.
The college is, as Rob pointed out earlier, a remaining of a time in which this equal vote wasn't possible due to organisatoric and educational issues, which are, as you'll have to admit, no longer present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, 2 Senators. And Congressmen and women to represent them based on population numbers attained from Census. Hence, the electoral college.
The elections are free and equal and secret. Except in southern Florida where apparently nobody knows how to tie their own shoes or where to find them.
The college was not created becuase the Founding Fathers thought the populous lacked intelligence. That's a common myth which resurfaced in 2000. The Founding Fathers had vast foresight and knew that the country would grow. But they also distrusted a central government (and other states to a certain extent) and did not want small, dense pockets determining who would govern the entire country.
I'm trying and trying, but I can't see what the one thing is supposed to say about the other. Representation of areas with low population density is ensured by the Senate, the Congress is supposed to reflect the true face of the population.
The argument that the Electoral College is necessary to give the rural areas vote a voice (Which is a myth itself as the urban population was also split about the election - Gore won the most votes, but as on the whole, not by a very large margin, if I'm not mistaken.) is simply not valid - those areas already got their polotical voice in another way.
I don't know what you assume as the base of your argumentation, but when all is said and done, not the land, but the people are supposed to elect the president, and if the majority of the people lives in urban areas, then they've got every right to vote the president they want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Founding Fathers had vast foresight and knew that the country would grow. But they also distrusted a central government (and other states to a certain extent) and did not want small, dense pockets determining who would govern the entire country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please. We both know there were <i>very</i> different opinions about whether the US should become a loose federation or a closely knit central state in the time of the founding fathers.
Also, I was putting 'educational' at the second place behind 'organisatoric' on purpose - at the time, it simply wasn't possible to organize a complete election in all states simulatunously. Putting any deeper meaning in this institution of pure pragmatism is - at least in my opinion - pointless.
We're near the end but I'll give it one more shot if for no other reason than to help younger voters to understand that their vote can and does count.
Here is a very simple example:
50 states. 1 state has 1,000,000 people in it. The other 49 have 10,000 people in it. ( I did say this was simplistic but it will make the point)
If the popular vote was the controlling factor in the election, the candidates would only have to convince the first state ( and maybe a couple nearby ) that he or she was right for the position. Even the combination of all 49 other states would not add up to the first. This means the candidates wouldn't bother reaching out to the more distant states.
The electoral college removes some of that by reducing the numbers statistically. The larger state still has the greater value but the smaller states together could swing the vote. Again, it's not just the individual voter, it's also about the states (U.S. means United STATES). Because the STATES have value in the electoral system, candidates are more inclined to campaign across the country. It also means that an individual in a state has more voting power than an individual in a country.
I also think you give the public too much credit. Only about half of the population actually votes. Maybe, just maybe that could start to change if people understood just how valuable their vote can be.
Yea.
OK, (s)he would never pass a law because (s)he'd face 98 Senators of the other party, but why bother?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->(U.S. means United STATES)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Could you tell me please what 'democracy' means?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because the STATES have value in the electoral system, candidates are more inclined to campaign across the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I partially agree here, but that just wouldn't change without of an electoral college - urban areas may be concentrated, but they're still spread out over the whole country.
Also, no president could ever win an election by one of the parts of population alone, simply as they're by nature all divided in their opinions.
I daresay that your average farmland county wouldn't see less of a campaign in a direct election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I also think you give the public too much credit. Only about half of the population actually votes. Maybe, just maybe that could start to change if people understood just how valuable their vote can be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For once, we agree. People would start voting if they had the feeling their vote had power.
Indirect electoral institutions, as the college is one, won't help getting that point across.
By the way, yes, I give the public much credit. I happen to know some damn fine chaps who belong to it, don't you?
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 18 2002,12:13-->
Yes. Could you tell me please what 'democracy' means?
Another misconception. The U.S. is not a true Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.
I partially agree here, but that just wouldn't change without of an electoral college - urban areas may be concentrated, but they're still spread out over the whole country.
Take another look at your population distribution map.
Gosh. Someone oughta tell Jefferson.
Seriously, I'm not referring to your true form of state (which at least in theory qualifies for both), but to what the people <i>you</i> are advocating in this whole debate use as one of their main arguments for any kind of action ("We will bring peace, justice and democracy to Afghanistan / Iraq").
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take another look at your population distribution map.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK. Take another look at the rest of my argumentation in the meanwhile, will you?
I don't know if anyone other than Nemisis and I are still viewing this thread, but if anyone is interested in the exactly-unexact distinction between Democracy and Republic, here's a link to some pretty good reads:
<a href="http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html" target="_blank">Click Here</a>
I tip my hat Nem, it's refreshing to have a good civil debate. <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->