A call to political action

---

Stupid's post makes a lot of sense to me. But moreover, I'm amazed about how many people have posted that they plan on following the "way they were raised." Even if you mindlessly follow your parents, the issues have changed, and they continue to change. On Republican isn't as good as the other, and all democrats are not equal either. For instance, a vote for George H. Bush in the early 90s is vastly different than a vote for George W. Bush now. They stand for incredibly different things (even though they're father/son). Voting because you were raised one way or the other is worse than voting for the best smile. And voting at all when you don't know the issues is absurd.I urge everyone to vote on the issues!!!

Well, the only reason why I would vote republican is because it means I'm better off since I have military ties.In my situation, it would either be, more benefits for me or concentrate at home... I really want our troops to finish the job in Iraq then I want them to come home. But since my health benefits cover about $2,000 every two months for medical bills, it's my best interest to vote republican... if I could vote that is.

Fair enough. It's makes sense to vote according to your interests (if you could vote).

Which would be better, do you think? For people to vote on a vague leaning, or for only the people who know a lot about the issues to vote? What about all the apathetics (me) who won't take the time to learn about it?

lol. You sound like our founding fathers. That is why the electoral college was made.

Did you know that the people of the United States DO NOT really vote for who is going to be the president of the US?

True enough, but the electoral college no longer makes "choices." They merely vote according to the votes of the populace. Thus, they are no substitute for knowing the issues.Sucki: You probably already know my opinion on "vague leanings." It's better to learn the issues. It promotes political accountability for elected figures if we evaluate them according to their actions and planned actions. If you are not willing to learn the issues, your vote only dilutes the election results with arbitrary ballots. I guess I must conclude that someone apathetic and unkowledgable about the issues should not vote.

I am a born and raised conservative. I am all for cutting taxes for married/middle class and upping military spending. I am against gay marriage, but against an amendment. Abortion only in rape, incest, and bad cases. Blow the sh*t out of Iraq and Afghan.

I think Kerry is a Gore. Gore would have pussed out when 9/11 happened, Kerry would do the same. Would Gore have gone to a needed war (face facts, Saddam was a bad, bad person...WMD's or not) if those French "lovers", Nazis from Germany, and Commies from "the Motherland" opposed? Probly not.

Bush for Prez.!!!

LOL... We're #1..We're #1..We're #1.. Good griefI'll bet your answer is to blow the shit out of everything.

In reply to: rue enough, but the electoral college no longer makes "choices." They merely vote according to the votes of the populace. Thus, they are no substitute for knowing the issues. Aha! See here, now this part is where you're wrong. The people who represent us in the electoral college does not have to vote the way the people see fit. That is why there is the "popular" vote. The popular vote is the people's opinion, while the electoral vote is the part that counts. Although, the people in the electoral college want to please the people within their state, but since their position can't be retired, it doesn't really matter.Sucks for us. The founding fathers really didn't want uneducated people to vote, therefore this system was constructed.

My understanding, websex, is that the electoral college system was made because communication was poor in those days. The average voter, a long way from Washington, would have no way of knowing what the candidates were like, so he couldn't make an informed decision. The best he could do was send someone local whose opinions he trusted to Washington to find out and choose on his behalf. So the vote for the electoral college was originally a vote for local people who were trusted to make a good choice.

yes, that's an excuse they used. And one that made very good sense back in that day. Although, if you read the records kept by James Madison at the Philadelphia Convention, you will realize that was not the major issue.The Framers of the Constitution did not favor a direct popular vote for president and vice president. They feared that the common people did not possess the wisdom and virtue necessary to make an informed choice. Instead, the Framers provided that the president would be selected by a special body of presidential electors, collectively known as the electoral college. The Framers hoped these electors would be smarter and better informed than the average person.

I DO believe we should get rid of the electoral college. But, as to apathetics not voting, that would be a form of aristocracy (we're better at ... so we have control). Now, in a purely theoretical sense, I love aristocracy. It'd be wonderful if somebody could take good care of us little people. But in reality, there could be no aristocracy w/out the corruption of power, so it wouldn't work.

Main reasons the electoral college has not been eliminated:1. The electoral college is traditional in this country2. States with a large population may not really desire a change since they receive a great deal of attention from presidential candidates because of their significant electoral vote3. The very smallest states probably would not desire a change since they have slightly more electoral votes than their population strictly entitles them to

In reply to: Aha! See here, now this part is where you're wrong. The people who represent us in the electoral college does not have to vote the way the people see fit. That is why there is the "popular" vote. The popular vote is the people's opinion, while the electoral vote is the part that counts. Although, the people in the electoral college want to please the people within their state, but since their position can't be retired, it doesn't really matter. You've either misinterpred either me or the electoral college. In modern times, the electors always vote for the candidate with the majority of votes in a state. This is an all or nothing deal. If a state is 49% to 51%, the candidate with 51% takes all of the electoral vote. This is what creates the discrepency between the popular vote and the votes of the electoral college- whether a candidate wins by a huge margin in a state or a small margin does not affect the votes of the electors.There is only ONE exception. An elector may not vote for both a VP and Presidential candidate if they are from the same state.The federalist papers also support ineligable's view of the electoral college. It was made primarily because the founders believed that local people would only be familiar with local candidates.

Ummmmm...hardly. I agree with the fact that a majority of the terror attacks and leaders come from the two aforementioned countries, while many do remain in SA, Libya, and Pakistan. I am not a warmonger, but I do believe that when a country crosses the line when it comes to politics, terrorism (there is NO denying the fact that Saddam ordered "Chemical Ali" to kill those hundreds of thousands of people and mass grave 'em) thta the US, who does have interests in those countries, to step in and take force.Ask yourself, if you were an Iraqi in a voting booth with an AK-47 to the back of your head, which of the 2 candidates would you vote for...Saddam Hussein...or...Saddam Hussein??

Hey,
Saddam was a bad man and everything but the U.S. has to keep its nose out of other peoples business. We have to realize if we keep our shit up with thinking were the world guardian and stuff like that, that we will be hated and even more terror attacks will occur. Damn, we are already hated by many. We CREATED Al-Queda, Just remember that. WE GAVE Osama the money because we were in the cold war. Its our governments fault for 9/11 if you think about it. When it came to the war in iraq, who supported us really? not any "big" countries. If we dont watch ourself we can technically get the shit kicked out of us. People have demonstrated that we dont have good security and its possible for more terror attacks. Another thing about iraq is that Bush went and made many false claims that were not supported.

Bush claimed many things like that Iraq had chemical weapons, vehicles capable of distributing the chemical weapons, and connections to Al-Queda. These were all founded untrue.

Many people think that this is just for oil. I think this goes deeper than that. I think Bush just wants to go and wage war and try to get re-elected. I personally think this man will do almost anything to get reelected including chopping off his left nut. I think the gay marriage amendment was just a controversial subject bush took up because he wanted the spotlight off his policies and national guard scandal.

I seriously think that Gore would have standed a better chance after 9/11 if it even happened. I think Al-Queda just doesnt like the bush family. Think about it. When were the trade centers attacked? Both under the bush administration.

Personally, if you didnt notice, i think the Bush administration sucks. Hes running this country into the ground with his shitty policies (what we had a 500 bil deficit this year? Thats insane. If bush gets re-elects, i just can't wait to see what he does concerning the mass baby boom retirement.) And our debt just keeps going up. I am not a fan of the Laffer curve and i dont believe it works. Bush thinks that if he gives taxcuts to big business then they will employ more people. Therefore bringing in more revenue for the government. This is proved wrong on many occasions. It didnt work for Reagan and it didnt work for Bush. This doesnt work because Business will find ways to increase production without hiring more.

Have you ever wondered what were still doing in Iraq if were such a good country? They have a government now and they dont even want us there anymore. They welcomed us there before but now they are starting to hate us cuz were pushing are nose even deeper into their busniess.

Well im done with my Bush bashing. I think hes a retard. Only smart thing i think Bush did was surround himself with smarter people then he. But i think there political careers might be over if they are associated by him. Just think, the guy cant even talk right. Listen to the way he nuclear weapons lol.

Ahhh, I bet i bored you all with this mass economics and government shiat. Its what you get when you read something about politics and you get all fired up :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: And when you actually read the fed report in its entirity.

People say the Laffer curve doesn't work, however the average time span for any economic plan to come into entirty or become effective is 5-6 years. Notice Clinton's plan didn't really become effective until his 2nd term. There were signs that it was effective earlier, however it was only a minor hop.Unemployment is going down, gas prices are stable, and those dang old folks from the War of 1812 won't die. Also, how is Britain not one of the "big" countries? I think GB has a lot more power than France!!!BTW, the US did give them weapons...but who did it??? Not Bush it was every Pres. from o about Nixon to Reagan including Carter (Dem.) Yeah we did this ourselves, but I love how th bleeding hearts try to pin this on the Republicans. There were Dem. preses from the time of the Cold War. You wanna know who started this shit? Kennedy and Johnson. They escalated the Cold War to a new level which led to future preses to send aid to the Afghanis and eventually Iraqis and Kuwaitis.BTW, Saddam also said he didn't have scud missiles, but 20 of them managed to land in Kuwait and Pakistan...hmmmm...thought he didn't have 'em. Oh well, lets give up and let he likes of N. Korea go ahead and blow up innocent people its ok. But I will be the first to say, my hands are clean of any innocent blood shed by satanistic blood-thirsty dictators.My big agenda however is welfare. I'm tired of lazy asses and 2nd/3rd gen welfarers stealing the money I WORKED FOR. Well guess what all you peeps on welfare...McDONALDS and BURGER KING and 7-11 are hiring.

Worried: while it's indisputable that both political parties were involved in the arming of Al Qaeda, I think you're missing the point. If I might rephrase it in my own way (although I think Sabyn's post was perfectly adequate), there are several problems with unilaterally attacking a "bad man" without further justification.To shorten this post, I'll focus only on one reason: the practical/pragmatic reason. The effects of war are so complex and unpredictable that it warrants questioning the war on Iraq even though Saddam was a "bad man." The fact is that we don't exactly know how our aggressive policy will play out, and violence often (always) has unexpected results, frequently leading to serious backfires. Al Qaeda is one example. Saddam is another; recall that the US implicitly supported Saddam during chemical Ali's atrocities. Given that war very often has such unexpected effects, we should probably question our leader's wisdom when he ferries our troops off to combat to find and replace some random "bad man" (there are many other equally horrible bad men still in power- what about them?). Ultimately, who will replace Saddam? Will the government we set up actually work (the Western backed government didn't work in Iran)? Will the violence in Iraq inflame would-be terrorists? Why weren't these questions at the forefront of Bush's concern? The rationale he gave us citizens sounded more of demagoguery and half-truths. I'm not suggesting that we have to shirk from imminent conflicts and invasions (including Bush Sr.'s perfectly justified first Iraqi war). I admit that this world would be a grim place if our leaders all took Neville Chamberlain's complacent attitude. However, the world would also be a grim place if the US decided that it was going to impose a unilateral military solution on every international situation it perceives as a problem.We need to think about the consequences and costs (very high) of war rationally without devolving into some primitive- Me good man fight bad man- mentallity. It's simply not enough that Saddam was a "bad man," and I personally resent that the administration gives us this post hoc justification now that it's clear that the WMD talk was totally out of sync with reality.

In reply to: BTW, the US did give them weapons...but who did it??? Not Bush it was every Pres. from o about Nixon to Reagan including Carter (Dem.) Yeah we did this ourselves, but I love how th bleeding hearts try to pin this on the Republicans Hey I never pinned this on the republicans at all. I didnt even mention that it was just the republicans. I specifically said we. Yea, i know its the whole thing of the "fool in the hot shower" where you should see how the economic plan is going. The way its looking it doesnt look good. I mean one factor im focusing on is the 500 bil deficit in this year alone. When i read this in the fed report im like What the hell this guy thinks were made of money. Yes unemployment is going down but Clintons had a lower unemployment.I think George Bush has done a very good job at keeping unemployment down at 5.6ish. He has had one of the lowest, if not the lowest unemployment rate as a republican president. Gas prices- i kind of have to disagree there. They really arent stable, They were like 1.50s in September but now were hitting 1.90s where i live. I dont consider that very stable. One of the stupidest things i think George Bush did was cut his funding for the ethanol project. He said he supported it then the next minute hes elected he gets rid of it. If research on ethanol continued and turned into a success then we could have had a substitute for gas and technically said Fuck off to OPEC who is wringing our neck right now. If Gas prices get to a point where they are too high and Bush is in for another term I will laugh like hell if he issues a price freeze because he will drive the deficit even higher. Support - The only "big" country that really supports us is Great Britian("Would you like a spot of tea, chaps" on theif yachts). Sorry, just had to. If the U.N. wanted to they could take military sanctions on the U.S. because Bush basically told them to drop dead. China, Germany, and France in a combined effort with the terror attacks that Al-Queda does could ram the U.S. into the ground if things got serious enough where the U.N. thought we were resorting to trying to make our nation bigger. In reply to: Oh well, lets give up and let he likes of N. Korea go ahead and blow up innocent people its ok. But I will be the first to say, my hands are clean of any innocent blood shed by satanistic blood-thirsty dictators. Its not any of our business really. This is basically the BLEEDING HEART that you were talking about earlier. Were trying to play big brother. This is the problem in the middle east. We support israel, We got fucked. Not only do they hate our life style but also because we support israel. We are going against what our first president said. Sure times change but i think his advise was very viable. 1.) Isolation except for trade 2.) No political parties. I don't believe in part two because Political parties have been helpful to this nation. And you had a very good viewpoint on welfare worried lol

He said he supported it then the next minute hes elected he gets rid of it. That's why I don't vote. Period. Full Bloody Stop YO!