Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"The kid didn't flinch, and was basically saying, "BRING IT ON!" a la president Bush when he decided to antagonize the rest of the world in a public address."He was talking about the insurgents in Iraq, not the rest of the worldhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...aq-troops_x.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yeah, DN has a problem with Bush, and anytime you have a problem with someone your views on that person tend to be a little one-sided. Now, having said that, I voted for Bush and probably would again, but here lately he's been screwing up an awful lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I did so because Kerry is more of a dumbass than Bush is.
I disagree. No one is more of a dumbass than Bush (seriously, "Bring them on."? What is he, twelve? Turn off Smackdown, Mr. President). Kerry is a putz, not a dumbass. There's a difference.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The kid didn't flinch, and was basically saying, "BRING IT ON!" a la president Bush when he decided to antagonize the rest of the world in a public address."He was talking about the insurgents in Iraq, not the rest of the worldhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...aq-troops_x.htm
Maybe you just didn’t get what DN was saying. To "antagonize the rest of the world" means to alienate them. Bush alienated the rest of the world by telling the insurgents in Iraq to "Bring it on." Why would the rest of the world want to support such a statement that resulted in the insurgents attacking coalition forces (there are other nations there) which resulted in a myriad of deaths. That is how he antagonized the rest of the world.Seems like you are a tad bit sensitive about Bush if you are making a topic about a one line semi-joke in a poker player’s blog, but hey that’s just my opinion. Maybe I am just as bad for responding!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I took your advise. Antagonize, "1. To incur the dislike of; provoke hostility or enmity in".Alienate, "1. To cause to become unfriendly or hostile; estrange".What was your point again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is accurate.Look up the word 'antagonize'. Look up 'alienate'. Then, reword that statement.A Little Bit Of Help..
Antagonize, "1. To incur the dislike of; provoke hostility or enmity in".Alienate, "1. To cause to become unfriendly or hostile; estrange".Thanks for proving my point. Also look up antagonize in Thesarus.com and the first Synonym you get is alienate.Anything else?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you just didn’t get what DN was saying. To "antagonize the rest of the world" means to alienate them. Bush alienated the rest of the world by telling the insurgents in Iraq to "Bring it on." Why would the rest of the world want to support such a statement that resulted in the insurgents attacking coalition forces (there are other nations there) which resulted in a myriad of deaths. That is how he antagonized the rest of the world.Seems like you are a tad bit sensitive about Bush if you are making a topic about a one line semi-joke in a poker player’s blog, but hey that’s just my opinion. Maybe I am just as bad for responding!
yes I voted for Bush because Kerry was an aboslute joke, as is the democratic partyI am actually probably going to party vote GOP this year just to piss off democrats because they are too stupid to realize how to winalso to all democrats, if Bush is such an idiot, how the hell could you not beat him in TWO elections?GG dems
Link to post
Share on other sites
yes I voted for Bush because Kerry was an aboslute joke, as is the democratic partyI am actually probably going to party vote GOP this year just to piss off democrats because they are too stupid to realize how to winalso to all democrats, if Bush is such an idiot, how the hell could you not beat him in TWO elections?GG dems
Why did you quote what I had to say, and then go on some moronic tirade about democrats?I agree that the Democratic Party seems to have an inept ability to lose elections that they should win, but it all boils down to voter turnout which use to the democrats biggest strength.Glad to see you are voting to piss people off ( I am sure your single vote will do that). How do the democrats get your vote? Tell you gays are the number 1 issue to this country?On your last point, they lost the first election because of the outdated Electoral College, more people did vote for Gore. The second time because Bush is doing such a wonderful job with the economy, is showing how "courageous" he is to go to war with Iraq, and showing how moral he is by taking out gays.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Longshanks, would you admit your views may be different from everyone elses because you are in Arlington, TEXAS? Come to Chicago or New York and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to agree with you. Our system is regional based. There's no sense in arguing about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes the electoral system is outdated to democrats because if there was no college all you would have to do is stay in LA, New York and other big trash cities and you will still have a chance to win because simply North Dakota and their 1 million residents or so wont matterCzar, when did I say EVERYONE agrees with me?of course there are differences, its just the GOP does not look down on big cities like the dems look down on us po' southern folklemme guess....you guys are 18, just got into college, taking philosphy classes and know everything because some 60 year old hippy has enlightened youand yes I will probly vote to piss people off because its fun, also for illegal aliens, to piss them off toosue me

Link to post
Share on other sites
yes the electoral system is outdated to democrats because if there was no college all you would have to do is stay in LA, New York and other big trash cities and you will still have a chance to win because simply North Dakota and their 1 million residents or so wont matter
First of all I am from ND, and there are far less than a million people in that state lol. Second of all, ND isn't as republican as you seem to believe. They have two democratic senators, and their representative is a democrat.Second of all, why don't you feel that everyone's vote should count the same? You seem to have a real hate for democrats or at least their positions since you admit that your vote is most likely going to be to "piss democrats off." What is it that you hate so much about "democrats"?
Link to post
Share on other sites
yes the electoral system is outdated to democrats because if there was no college all you would have to do is stay in LA, New York and other big trash cities and you will still have a chance to win because simply North Dakota and their 1 million residents or so wont matterCzar, when did I say EVERYONE agrees with me?of course there are differences, its just the GOP does not look down on big cities like the dems look down on us po' southern folklemme guess....you guys are 18, just got into college, taking philosphy classes and know everything because some 60 year old hippy has enlightened youand yes I will probly vote to piss people off because its fun, also for illegal aliens, to piss them off toosue me
I'm a 27 year old with a degree in Political Science and a minor in Pre-Law. Noone has to explain why they vote. You can vote for whatever reason you choose, but you are doing a fine job of generalizing. At least you didn't bring up gun control or the "Patriot" Act. Sure, I disagree with your political views, but my only point was you have to admit your view may be biased by your location and proximity to the Presiden't hometown.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did you quote what I had to say, and then go on some moronic tirade about democrats?I agree that the Democratic Party seems to have an inept ability to lose elections that they should win, but it all boils down to voter turnout which use to the democrats biggest strength.Glad to see you are voting to piss people off ( I am sure your single vote will do that). How do the democrats get your vote? Tell you gays are the number 1 issue to this country?On your last point, they lost the first election because of the outdated Electoral College, more people did vote for Gore. The second time because Bush is doing such a wonderful job with the economy, is showing how "courageous" he is to go to war with Iraq, and showing how moral he is by taking out gays.
You make me laugh.... :club: Funny how the liberals scream about the "outdated electoral college" which just happens to be in our constitution for very good reason, when, and only when, it suits them. And the supreme court wasn't upholding that same constitution, they were "electing a president" I suppose? Parrot. Learn to think for yourself.
First of all I am from ND, and there are far less than a million people in that state lol. Second of all, ND isn't as republican as you seem to believe. They have two democratic senators, and their representative is a democrat.Second of all, why don't you feel that everyone's vote should count the same? You seem to have a real hate for democrats or at least their positions since you admit that your vote is most likely going to be to "piss democrats off." What is it that you hate so much about "democrats"?
I think his point was that everyones vote SHOULD count. That includes those of us in areas/states with a small population that would get exactly zero representation if it wasn't for the electoral college. As he said no more than 5 or 6 states would elect the president of the United States if it was merely a popular vote. Re-read your history books...this is exactly why the founding fathers included this provision (the electoral college) in the constitution.
Link to post
Share on other sites

MY hatred of the democratic party is because it is run by absolute idiotsputting howard dean in charge all but killed the dems chances of making signifigant(sic), if any gains in 06, the GOP is KILLING money wisemy comment about ND being GOP was because it easily went GOP in 04 presidential electionand the above poster is right, every vote does count in our system, if it all went to the popular vote NOBODY would campaign across the middle statesTexas, Cali, FLorida and NY would dominate, thats not representing america well at allI am a conservative who is pissed off at the GOP but the dems offer NO solution, both parties are big government bullshit parties

Link to post
Share on other sites
As he said no more than 5 or 6 states would elect the president of the United States if it was merely a popular vote.
5 or 6 states decide the election for the president now anyways. Only its OH, FL, WI, MI and PA.Personally, i think there are decent arguments and major flaws for each side of this issue.The funny thing is--conenctration of voting in states with high populations was only one of the many reasons they instituted this mechanism. They also doubted the intelligence in the American people, they were concerned about the availability of information about the candidates in extreme rural areas, and everyone would vote for their local guy--thus making it unlikely that someoen would be elected by a popular majority.Many of those issues are no longer a problem. But now a democrat in TX, a Republican in NY or CA might as well stay home and not vote because their vote won't matter. That doesn't seem all that fair.The electoral college has the tendency to overlook minority party supporters and gives an appearance that an entire state is democrat or republican. Republicans sure like to whip out that electoral map that makes this country look so red, but when you really think about it, it isn't an accurate representation of how this country is made up of roughly 50/50 dems/repubs supporters come election time. Suddenly a HUGE voter mandate doesn't look like such a mandate when the candidate's victory could be wiped out by a 2% shift.
Link to post
Share on other sites

They should change the name of this forum to Daniel's Politics Forum.Our government was never intended to be chosen by the people. The electoral college exists to mitigate the input of the people. Our founding fathers didn't limit the vote to landowning white men by accident.Anybody know the name of an electoral college delegate from their state?We have the illusion of democracy. The people are the cows to the system's cowboys. On occasion the cows stampede and the cowboys have to get out of the way, but for the most part, the cows do what the cowboys make them do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 or 6 states decide the election for the president now anyways. Only its OH, FL, WI, MI and PA.Personally, i think there are decent arguments and major flaws for each side of this issue.
I agree, and have personally wavered on this issue before. I've come to the current conclusion that the Electoral College is better than pure direct democratic election.Unless we demote states to simple political jurisdictions, they should still have some independence of the Federal Government...and thus have the right to avoid being "ruled" by other states influence on the Fed...a la a populous state like CA, TX, etc. Vermont should be governed only by the Constitutionally-granted powers of the Federal Government, not by pro-Texas motives. Remember CA is only one big state...life would suck just as much for a blue state if a few red states were ruling the roost every election.The point that certain states make the difference anyway even with an electoral college in place is only because they are swing states and have a lot of votes. The states mentioned earlier as the "ones that matter" could easily change in a few years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless we demote states to simple political jurisdictions, they should still have some independence of the Federal Government...and thus have the right to avoid being "ruled" by other states influence on the Fed...a la a populous state like CA, TX, etc. Vermont should be governed only by the Constitutionally-granted powers of the Federal Government, not by pro-Texas motives. Remember CA is only one big state...life would suck just as much for a blue state if a few red states were ruling the roost every election.
But states still have their senators and representative to make sure a few states cannot "rule the roost" so to speak.And quite frankly--there are a lot of areas in California that are VERY red. Just like there are a lot of areas in NY that are also very red. What sucks for them is that their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...