If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD...

Andrew it cant happen becouse the US electoral system is skewed towards the single party system you guys have now.
And yes overall Gore had more votes then Bush, just do a google ya twat.

PS yes I said single party system.
You have a single party with a right wing and a far right wing.
They agree on 99.9% of everything, the differences lie in the execution of the things both agree upon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
so again I'm wrong? Or by your own eyes, at the least...

What I don't get is...would you, Ali, LIKE a US that was majority-led by Christians and these 'unwashed masses' who are lied to every day and 'take it up the rrear and enjoy every moment of it?'

Believe you me, California may have a strong democratic contingent, but they are far from the majority of the entire nation. Not to mention your idea of representation would discourage independent parties. People already complain enough about how hard it is for a Green or Libertarian to get in power, but then if they had to compete against the unabashed majority of like-minded, dull-witted masses?

Am I at least hitting a chord with you? Talking your lingo, walking your walk? I'm trying to think in terms you've used to describe the problem I see, notsomuch as I would see it, but as 'Ali' would see it - if he didn't seem to have one opinion for one place/moment/situation, and the complete opposite for the next.

---

No youre not, youre not even making any sense whatsoever.
Seems like you completely misread what I wrote tough.

Well, I was going to read the entire thread and then got bored after the first page. Blame it on the vicious cold I've got making me far more irritable than normal, which can be quite a feat.

The problem with the premise of this thread is that there's absolutely no problem believing that the entire laundry-list of people in the original post either lied flat out or were totally clueless. The idea that Bush couldn't be lying about the WMD situation because all these other people were in on it too only works if you consider the list above reproach.

James

Indeed

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone Gore had more of the popular vote. Our electoral system has to do with the fact that we're a Republic of states, and it has its advantages as well as its disadvantages.

---

Okay. But it's easy to say things. I don't know how you categorize states, but if it is official and not just fluff then there should be some evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Andrew it cant happen becouse the US electoral system is skewed towards the single party system you guys have now.
And yes overall Gore had more votes then Bush, just do a google ya twat.

---

Point proven.

You didn't even do research or anything before posting that so called 'common knowledge' you use in your posts. If so you could have given me your credits.

I don't find your source, you're supposed to have one when arguing politics so you don't look like a raving fool. Thank you.

Heh, Andrew, there is loads of evidence for Gore winning the popular vote. No one's denying it - you'd know that it was common knowledge if you watched the news, or were paying attention back in 2000, or so on.

Almaci does use a lot of baseless lunatic bullshit information in his posts, but this isn't an example of it.

You know what the big problem with sources is? You start refering to them and then the nay-sayers not only tear into your facts but your sources for the facts as well. Legitimizing your arguments merely leads to twice the bitching.

James

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew
Okay. But it's easy to say things. I don't know how you categorize states, but if it is official and not just fluff then there should be some evidence.



Point proven.

You didn't even do research or anything before posting that so called 'common knowledge' you use in your posts. If so you could have given me your credits.

I don't find your source, you're supposed to have one when arguing politics so you don't look like a raving fool. Thank you.

---

Listen you idiot.
You go to google and type the following: Elections 2000 popular vote

The very first link you get is the official US Government site with figures for ALL presidential candidates, seriously this thing is so common knoledge that i tought everyone who even moderatly follows the news or politics would know it, apparently you dont tough and are even too stupid to find it online, mind you I admit its well hidden, after all there are only a couple thousand pages mentioning it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Heh, Andrew, there is loads of evidence for Gore winning the popular vote. No one's denying it - you'd know that it was common knowledge if you watched the news, or were paying attention back in 2000, or so on.

Almaci does use a lot of baseless lunatic bullshit information in his posts, but this isn't an example of it.

---

I take offense at that, most of my arguments are well supported by as manny Stone approved sources as possible :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
That would be "all sorts of obstructions".

The problem with what you're saying is that, if the majority feels one way, the rest should be subjected to it.

The problem with a the Shiite rule that you're, I think, talking about isn't a democracy in the American sense but another Iranesque system of domination. Just because one group of people represent the majority, doesn't mean that it would be right for the entire country to be subject to living as the majority.

The majority religion in the US is Protestant Christianity. How do you think it would go over if the Christians began calling for a Christian government? A government ruled only by Biblical law and nothing else? Dissent? No dissent. After all, God's law is the only law. Homosexuals, racists, adulterers, etc., people who, while making decisions that may be questionable or wrong to some, who have the right to make such decisions, would simply be killed or thrown out, because they do not see the way the majority does.

The majority of Americans did not support going into World War I. Did that mean that we should sit on the sideline while our friends are destroyed? Or how about, say we have a family of five. Three kids, mom, and dad. Mom and dad want veggies with the supper but the kids want potato chips. Three against two. The kids should win; but the adults are in a better position to make the decision on what is to be eaten. Much like the US entry into WWI, the government understood that we needed to enter for the good of things.

In any case, this is just a rambling, lengthy way of saying: you cannot simply setup a government based on certain majorities. If you are going to allow freedom, there needs to be real freedom for all, not just some. A government needs to be able to represent everyone. Hence, I do enjoy the American republic much more than a true democracy. Argue whichever way you want on that.

---

Americans got to choose their own system of government. The Iraqi people should be afforded the same opportunity. If it turns out you don't like the system of government they choose, don't go to Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew
Okay. But it's easy to say things. I don't know how you categorize states, but if it is official and not just fluff then there should be some evidence.

---

Dude, they were making fun of it on Saturday Night Live. Where have you been? You do know that OJ got off, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
There is no representation of the people as its either the entire state or nothing.

---

Only on Presidential elections. Minnesota went Democrat for President in 2000 yet, in 2002, we went to half Republican/half Democrat in our Washington representation. 4 Republican House members, 1 Republican Senate member, 4 Democrat House members, 1 Democrat Senator.

The problem is, you see representation in a very narrow, foggy glass. You only see the President as representation whereas, had America not wanted to go to war, and had Congress been apposed, we could not have gone to war. Therefore, we would have been represented.

So, both the Iron Range and the suburbs in Minnesota got represented in Congress; two completely different thinking groups. The problem with your proposition, that you've still not replied to I might add, is that you're saying freedom for some is better than freedom for all. Just because the majority of Iraq is Shiite Muslim doesn't make it fair to put them solely in charge, as you were saying we should. They are not calling for a secular government but instead a government controlled by Islam. This is not freedom.

You cannot guarantee the freedom for some and forget the rest.

Quote:

---

Thus entirely nulifying all other votes, with such a system swing voters in a swing state get more power then the vast majority in the country.

---

Not if they're in Montana, or North Dakota, or Wyoming; their electoral votes are so small it almost doesn't matter who they vote for.

The problem again arises in your dogmatic insistance that the only representation Americans have is the President. We still have the House and the Senate, and even our states have government we can elect.

Quote:

---

Thats how someone who had millions of votes LESS(even disregarding Florida)becomes the winner.

---

This is rich. Millions? Sorry pal, it was about 550,000, not "millions".

Quote:

---

Thats not democracy is it?

---

No, it's a republic; like I've been saying. Are you even reading my messages in their entirety or are you just picking pieces? The US government is classified, by the CIA, as a "Republic with strong democratic tradition".

Quote:

---

The majority of people who took the trouble of voting voted against Bush, yet despite getting fewer votes he becomes president.

---

Again, because it is a republic, not a true democracy.

Quote:

---

Likewise the green party has millions of followers trougouth the US, in none of the states however are they strong enough on a state level so the system is build in such a way that despite the national popularity of a third party that party is all but barred from making the voice of millions of people heard where it matters.

---

First off, in 2000, roughly 2.8 million people voted Green (or, Nader). This would be 1% of the population. If you spread this across fifty states (although to be fair, we know Wyoming wouldn't have as many as California), it makes 56000 per state; the size of a large town.

In any case, there are multiple issues at play here. First, let's look at some voting statistics.

In 2002, 0.45% of Minnesota voted for a Green Party candidate for Senator. However, 2.25% of the people voted for a Green Party governor. 3% voted for a Green Party SOS. 3.6% for State Auditor.

In order to find the party faithful, one must look at the lowest common denominator, which would be 0.45%. Now, this is just one state, and a state considered "liberal" (although, not to the extent of the coasts).

If only one-half percent of the population is party faithful to Green, how can they be represented?

As it is, the Green Party is just not popular enough to get its candidates elected. It is not a viable medium for mainstream America.

Quote:

---

NO REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLES WILL.

---

Again, you suggest that only the President is a representative.

Quote:

---

There are far more Green party followers in the US then there are Cuban American voters(we are talking about millions here)yet the Cuban Americans(just one example)hold swing votes in swing states so hey they get the freebies, they can go visit Cuba(a land they claim to have fled out of fear for their lives)as much as they want while honest hardworking Americans who believe in the land of the free cant becouse the Cuban Americans decided that they and only they(and some doctors and musicians and stuff)are allowed to do that.

---

It isn't the immigrants from Cuba that are the "swing", it's immigrants from Latino states.

Quote:

---

And you think there is nothing wrong with such a system?

---

Twisting words.

I didn't say that nothing was wrong with the system, I said I liked it. There is less wrong with the American Republic than a true democracy. In your mind, true democracy is the only way to go. However, true democracy means that people will only be steamrolled. Sizable (sizable, mind you; not fringe) groups should be represented. On a statewide scale, there is even a Hmong representative in the MN state house. People are represented in a Republic. Not a democracy.

You want sizable minorities to be steamrolled, I do not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Americans got to choose their own system of government. The Iraqi people should be afforded the same opportunity. If it turns out you don't like the system of government they choose, don't go to Iraq.

---

Completely laughable. Sorta like, "If you don't like what Stalin is doing, don't go to Russia".

Please. I do not think that you are really so simple as to think that a cleric-inspired uprising of Shiite Muslims should control the country. I mean, seriously. How would you feel if Christians controlled America? "No swearing, no sex, no sins! You are all bound to our rules!"

Idiocy. You cannot have a religion control a government; especially a government that is representing different groups.