Why the whole world detest Bush?

[EagerBeaver]

I think Bush is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much. It's the classic devil that you know is better than the devil you don't analysis. I don't think I will vote for either of these candidates.

Regarding Vietnam, many of you guys may be too young to remember it, but I remember it. The American public turned against the war with the media coverage of the Mai Lai massacre and a series of war photographs, one of which I will never forget showing a young Vietnamese girl, about 12 years old, running naked down a dirt road from a napalm attack, her clothes apparently having been burned off. I have a close relative who fought in Vietnam as an 18 year old boy, and he came back totally fucked up, although he has since gotten his life back on track.

 

[daydreamer41]

Curious don't confuse the issue.

1. Republicans bashed Clinton for draft dodging; they did not bash him for not serving or not serving in Vietnam nonetheless. If Ford did not pardon the draft dodgers, he would have been a convicted felon if caught.

Bush served. His unit could have been called up to Vietnam but it was not. Democrats are bashing Bush now for not serving in Vietnam, which is even more silly.

2. When did O'Neill say this? What is the date? Was this on the TV news? I don't watch TV and have not read this. Please reveal your source. This is a new one to me.

Kerry said on the Senate floor that it was seared in his mind that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 and the Nixon Admin was the one who sent them. One problem - Nixon took office in Jan. 1969. Gee, how could that be? It was seared in Kerry's mind. This is in the Congressional record.

Mi Lai was one instance. Kerry said it was Common place. I hate to tell you but there were thousands of Vietnam vets and how come the vast majority (99.9%) of them never seen these atrocities? How come they are not lining up for interviews with NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN, etc., to back up Kerry. Give me a break. Abu Grais was puppy stuff compared to what Kerry alleges.

The US economy is doing pretty well compared to when Clinton left the White House.

I don't believe you are non-partisan. You talk like a Bush hater.

Legalized prostitution? There are liberterians that are for that. They are extremely conservative in other areas. The Republican party has a wing of them.

 

[daydreamer41]

Originally posted by StripperLover
I as a Canadian, I find it amazing how some of my American brothers & sisters, seem to feel the need to categorize people with variations of beliefs other than theirs. I wonder if this need to categorize people, is based in some part however small, to the US voting registration system of categorizing voters ?
He's right/left, capitalist/socialist, Rep/Democrat, conservative/liberal, etc.

I also love to read these excerpts from some who have a particular point of view or support candidates who have such views & then come to Canada, to enjoy our socialist loving way of life & left leaning views on such issues as, prostitution.

Gee, Stripperlover, you missed my post ... read about the Liberterians. You seem to be the one categorizing.

 

[Steely Dan]

Can someone tell me what the hell any of this has to do with reviewing escorts?

(I guess it's true all politicians are whores..)

SD

 

[daydreamer41]

Every topic on this board winds down to the main subject reviewing escorts, SD.

 

[Steely Dan]

DD,

You mean winds down FROM the main subject right?

SD

 

[daydreamer41]

Winds down TO escorts FROM the main subject. Yeah, I agree.

 

[Red Paul]

Beaver -- Sorry, not only can I not follow the logic in your reply, I can't see how it's my logic. Maybe we're arguing at crosspurposes. But it is safe to say this: without the electoral college, the candidate who won the most votes in 2000 would have won the presidency. With the electoral college, the second-place candidate won instead, which one is bound to consider an anti-democratic outcome.

Daydreamer -- Wow! You don't seem in a frame of mind to take in facts, let alone lessons in etiquette. So I won't give you either. But thanks for seeing fit to mention me.

 

[daydreamer41]

Facts, Red Paul? Ah, the electoral college is part of the US constitution. Please read about it. The rules are published ahead of time. Bush is certainly not the first President to win the Presidency without getting the most votes, and he won't be the last. It is a very equitable system; we have a representative republic. That's how our system was founded. I thought you in Canada had a parlementary system where you vote for parlement and the Prime minister and the winner has to form a government with the different parties. It's not the same but similar. Educate me if I am wrong.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Daydreamer is correct. There have been other Presidents elected who were popular vote losers besides Bush. The system is equitable and fair. There are no plans to amend the Constitution because Gore lost in 2000, just as there wasn't after the prior popular vote winners failed to get elected,.

 

[daydreamer41]

SL, Do you ever personally vote for PM, or does the representative vote for the PM once the party gains power?

 

[daydreamer41]

Thanks. I think I understand your system. I am not sure, but I think I understand it.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
Daydreamer is correct. There have been other Presidents elected who were popular vote losers besides Bush. The system is equitable and fair. There are no plans to amend the Constitution because Gore lost in 2000, just as there wasn't after the prior popular vote winners failed to get elected,.

No one doubts that there have been presidents besides Bush who won office without winning the popular vote: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes, and whoever prevailed over Garfield in 1884. (UPDATE: I should have said "whoever prevailed over Cleveland in 1888.")

But I very much doubt the conclusion Daydreamer and Beaver draw from this, which is that "the system is equitable and fair." In fact, logically speaking, that is not a conclusion but a non sequitor. Just because a system occasionally malfunctions in exactly the same way does not mean this malfunction is somehow all for the best.

Despite Daydreamer's assumption, I'm American. But I do know something about Canada's parliamentary system and can tell you the country has had the same kind of problem on occasion. For instance, in 1979 the Conservatives won more seats in Parliament even though the Liberals won more votes.

Luckily the parliamentary system allows for elections as soon as it becomes clear the governing party cannot count on a majority in Parliament; and a party that wins office after losing the popular vote will probably find itself in that situation very quickly. Thus, after 9 months the Tories had to call a new election and were chased out by Trudeau and the Liberals.

The situation in Quebec is different because the voting districts are rigged to favor the rural vote, which favors the Parti Quebecois. As a result, there have been several elections where the PQ came in second for the popular vote but won enough seats to govern comfortably. To me that stinks on ice, but the Quebeckers seem to put up with it.

Stripper, if I got any of this wrong, I'll stand by for your corrections.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Originally posted by Red Paul
Just because a system occasionally malfunctions in exactly the same way does not mean this malfunction is somehow all for the best.

What it comes down to is that, depending on who you wanted to win in 2000, the system is wonderful or horrible. If Gore had won the election in 2000 but lost the popular vote to Bush, you would be among those extolling the virtues of the electoral college.

It is no different than Duke fans who say they lost to UConn in the Final 4 last year because of the officiating. Duke did not lose because of the officiating. They lost because within the contours of how that game was being officiated, Duke did not make the appropriate adjustments, resulting in Emeka Okafor fouling out all 3 of Duke's centers.

The point is you have to win or lose within the rules, and if you don't do that, don't cry about the rules afterwards.

 

[Looking]

RP,
The voting situation is not rigged in Quebec. While much of the rural vote is von by the PQ, that is simply a result of geography, demographics and language. The same would happen in any other province with a similar socio-cultural situation as in Quebec.

I have read many of the posts in this thread, mainly out of curiosity and for a few laughs. It is amazing that, once someone has convinced themselves of who they will back (Bush or Kerry), they are willing to believe anyone and anything to back-up their choice.

While I maintain that Bush is a moron as well as a warmonger and a scarry muthafucka, I would hate to be left with the single choice of electing Kerry. However, for the safety of the planet (both the human populaton and the environment), Bush must go.

At least in Canada, we have a true multi-party system. It's too bad the right-wingers merged, though. What ever happened to the CRAP party (Canadian Reform Alliance Party)???

I'm curious about the issue of abortion on this board, especially with those against. If an SP got pregnant (say by equipment failure), would you want her to have the baby, with all the legal responsibilities that that entails???

As for taxes, most economists that I've herd discuss the issue agree that lowering taxes will not stimulate the economy substantially, nor create significant jobs. Jeeze, maybe that's why so many jobs have been lost since Dubbya took over from Phil Atio...or wait maybe blame the "war on terrorism" - (aka excuse of the moment to perpetuate the Culture of Fear in America, now that communism and the Cold War has fadded, nobody cares about the "war on drugs", and civil liberties have greatly improved - at least on paper).

Honey, we're safe now, we're all stocked up on duct tape!!!

 

[EagerBeaver]

I would want an SP to abort anything created by reason of equipment failure, if the child were mine.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by EagerBeaver
What it comes down to is that, depending on who you wanted to win in 2000, the system is wonderful or horrible. If Gore had won the election in 2000 but lost the popular vote to Bush, you would be among those extolling the virtues of the electoral college.

Very much not true. I do believe the country would have been better off with Gore; but that is not the reason I am against having the second-place candidate win. I favor democracy, which hinges on having the first-place candidate win. So I was taught in 7th grade social studies, and so I believe today.

Don't make assumptions about another person's state of mind -- he'll aways know more about it than you do.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by Looking
RP,
The voting situation is not rigged in Quebec. While much of the rural vote is von by the PQ, that is simply a result of geography, demographics and language. The same would happen in any other province with a similar socio-cultural situation as in Quebec

Looking -- You miss my point by quite a long way. I did not say the PQ somehow rigged matters so that rural voters favored them; I said that districting is rigged to favor the rural vote and that, since rural voters favor the PQ, on several occasions this has helped the PQ stay in power.

I may be wrong; this is only what I've found from looking at the newspapers. But I would not be wrong for the reason you give -- since, of course, there is nothing unfair about a party having more support from one part of the electorate than another.

 

[Red Paul]

Originally posted by regnad
Looking,

Don't believe everything you read. The Bush campaign has done a pretty good job of getting the corporate media to buy into its image of Kerry. He is not what they've portrayed him to be.

Regnad -- I agree with your post 99%. My caveat is that "corporate media" implies an economic bias behind the bad coverage, whereas I think the problem is just superficiality and a willingness to be bullied by the people who shout the loudest (namely, the right). But who knows?

As you imply, the Bush squad preys upon the half-informed, on people who know there are nasty charges regarding Kerry but who can't read a few long newspaper articles and discover there's nothing to the charges. Instead they decide that maybe he faked a couple of medals but earned the others -- or whatever. They figure they're being shrewd because they bought only half a ton of horse manure instead of the full load.

In my view, the Bush scammers couldn't get away with this if people only did their homework, and there you have the heart of the problem. Of course that doesn't let the GOP or lazy reporters off the hook.

 

[Jaxon]

Originally posted by Looking
RP,
At least in Canada, we have a true multi-party system.

A multi, or at least a 3 party system is what the USA needs. Differences sometimes are blurred between Republicans & Democrats.