Anathema Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Andrew, in Dune that was merely an excuse. Nobody believed there actually were any aliens, but the nukes they possesed would make other houses think twice before trying to eradicate them.And what is A.W.O.L. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 And what is A.W.O.L. ?i looked it up it meansnounOne who is away or absent without leave.adjective- Absent without permission.- (military) having deserted your post or station without leave.synonyms - truant.type of - absenteesimilar - absent, disloyal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number6 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 lol. this kind of idiocy is what will kill off the world. if you are not moral and smart enough to understand why a dictator with absolute power should not be allowed nuclear weapons, then there is little anyone can do for you.You're right... Saddam isn't a democratic leader. But imho Bush isn't as well, because he had less votes than Al Gore. (~500'000 votes)But what I wanted to say, isn't that Saddam should have nuclear weapons... I think all the other countries should not have any... but countries like the USA will never dispose of their nuclear weapons.Huh? Oh you mean California and New York. That's why we have an electoral vote, which the democrats want to abolish so they can win every election in the future. States like California and New York that have humongous populations in relation to the rest of the country would always dictate the election without the electoral vote. It boils down to winning the most electoral votes which gives every region in the country a voice in the election. It seems very fair and democratic to me. Bush won by a narrow margin. You are lucky Gore is not president. He would have based all of his decisions on polls and would have already attacked Iraq months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 No, Bush actually got less votes then Gore. He won because of the winner takes all system. Even a single vote more can mean that it is as if all the people in that state voted for Bush. Gore won the popular vote.But neither of them got the plurality, wich says a thing or two about both candidates ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I think US president has too much power according to vote system. Such head should have straight election as every normal nation has. Those "electors" even de iure don't have to vote for that one whom they should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Caid that's why we have checks and balances, the president has less power than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 So, he is a had of government, that means something. Don't say he has less than british queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I think the main flaw of the American political system is that there are only 2 parties worth considering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_Doc Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Is the "Saddam: 48 hours left" in motion, or will it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Well Earthnuker, that is because of the past, where there were only two, any little party that tries to come along after that, mid-1900s - now, they will never get enough votes. Impossible. Always 1-3%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_Doc Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Bah, isn't it enough with Republicans and Democrats? Why must there always be like one billion different parties? Heck, we got the Beer Party here! No kiddin'! Their message? "Cheaper beer"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 And what if the only two existing parties strike a deal? You end up with a de facto dictatorship."The penalty for those who refuse to get involved in politics is that they end up being governed by their inferiors."- Plato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Please edric, those two parties are so diverse and opposing that a deal wouldn't last long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Ha ha ha... don't be so naive, Acriku. The end justifies the means, remember? And the end is to get into power.The only reason they haven't struck a deal yet is because their own greed keeps them from accepting to share power with others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Edric, you don't know how things work. The power they would gain would be to write and pass laws, and influence decisions, etc, so how could they write or pass laws without having a war with different opinions? The demos wouldn't let the repubs pass their laws, and the repubs wouldn't let the demos pass their's, so it wouldn't amount to anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 They would simply pretend to argue for the sake of the public opinion and the media, while they arrange a simple "one for you - one for me" deal. This term the reps get their way, next the dems... and so on. And they share the benefits.But like I said, their personal ambition and greed gets in the way of that, thank God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Lol OK mr. conspirator. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Your blind trust in politicians is highly misplaced... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Not blind trust, I'm sure they would strike a powerdeal, but it would never work out - which is one of the reasons why it never happened. They are too opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointybum Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 lol hello gentsi see nothing has changed then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeLeto Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 They would simply pretend to argue for the sake of the public opinion and the media, while they arrange a simple "one for you - one for me" deal. This term the reps get their way, next the dems... and so on. And they share the benefits.Jeez, you are paranoid. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 And what if the only two existing parties strike a deal? You end up with a de facto dictatorship."The penalty for those who refuse to get involved in politics is that they end up being governed by their inferiors."- PlatoIn Czech Republic, 1999, biggest two parties, Zeman's left-wing CSSD and Klaus' right-wing ODS made an "opposition deal", what caused ODS for some "unknown reasons" to join CSSD in their tryings. Not only there was no dictatorship (also the opposition deal was considered as a failure by politologists and as "worst thing they've ever did" by party leaders) since 1989, even they joined NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3647992.htmlHouse, Senate agree to prohibit citizens' e-mail surveillance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 From todays news:http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/68982.htmhttp://www.washtimes.com/world/20030212-76636216.htmhttp://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030212-83165190.htmhttp://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030212-20375458.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Iraq inspectors find banned missile system.Special Operations Units Already in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.